Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Warwick) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time, Tomorrow.

East Hull Gas Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1900.

Copy ordered,
of Treasury List of Colonial Stocks and of Stocks of Territories to which the Colonial Stock Acts, 1877 to 1900, have been applied under the powers conferred by the Colonial Development Act, 1929, in respect of which the provisions of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, are for the time being complied with."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN-MINING INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will make a further statement upon the proposals of the Government for implementing the recommendations regarding tin-mining contained in the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Metalliferous Mining Industry?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The report to which my hon. Friend refers has been under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any general announcement with regard to the recommendations. The matter is not one which lends itself to treatment by way of question and answer, but I shall be pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend any specific point he wishes to raise.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' RELIEF FUNDS.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Northumberland and Durham miners' permanent relief fund has been compelled to cease the payment of pensions to aged miners owing to the depressed state of the industry; and whether he will take such steps as are necessary to enable the Miners' Welfare Fund to make grants to this and similar funds?

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes. With regard to the second part, the Miners' Welfare Committee has been advised that such an object is not within the scope of the fund as at present constituted. Amending legislation would, therefore, be required to make grants for such a purpose permissible. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the recent Departmental Committee of Inquiry into the Miners' Welfare Fund advised against the extension of the scope of the fund in this direction, both as a matter of principle and also on actuarial grounds, even if the output levy were to continue at the penny rate. As I announced last April, it has been decided to introduce a Bill at an early opportunity to reduce the amount of the levy to one halfpenny, and in those circumstances I cannot see any possibility of extending the scope of the fund to pension schemes.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope for these aged miners?

Mr. BROWN: I am aware of the difficulty. My hon. Friend will understand that the representative of the Miners' Federation on the Departmental Committee, while advising an extension of
the principle in a minority report, specifically advised against it in the event of the levy being reduced.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Can the hon. Member suggest any way in which these miners could be helped?

Mr. BROWN: None at all.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Did not the minority report also recommend the continuance of the ld., and is this not an argument for continuing the levy at ld.?

OVERTIME.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 4 and 5.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he will consider taking a national survey of the registers kept at the collieries containing the particulars of times of descent and ascent for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of overtime being worked and the nature of the work done;
(2) whether, in view of the great changes in coal production during recent years, he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee of inquiry to ascertain what alteration, if any, is necessary to the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, with especial reference to the working of overtime?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have at present no adequate reason to think that the circumstances call for action along the two courses suggested in the hon. Member's questions. If the proposal to survey the registers were supported by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and by evidence which satisfied me that such action could be justified, I would consider the proposal sympathetically.

Mr. MACDONALD: When is the hon. Gentleman going to tackle this vexed question of overtime?

Mr. BROWN: As the hon. Member knows, I am giving the matter my serious attention. Perhaps he will put a question down after the Recess.

Mr. MACDONALD: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether in future he will always consult with the official representatives of the district association of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain prior to deciding whether legal proceedings ought to be taken in a case of alleged illegal overture at a colliery?

Mr. BROWN: No, Sir. I should consider any such action on my part most improper, and I think on reflection the hon. Member will agree.

Mr. MACDONALD: As this matter arose last week, would it not have been wiser for the hon. Member to have consulted the district association of the Miners' Federation involved?

Mr. BROWN: The Secretary for Mines has already adequate powers to get a full and impartial statement of the facts. The responsibility as to whether any legal action is necessary rests with the Government.

Mr. MACDONALD: Is he satisfied that in the case dealt with last week he got an impartial statement of the facts?

Mr. BROWN: Yes, I think so.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Coal Mines Act enables the hon. Member to take proceedings in any reasonable case against a colliery company?

Mr. BROWN: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

Mr. TINKER: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many cases have -been reported to his Department during 1932 and the latest figures for 1933 of overtime being worked when such overtime has meant the person or persons concerned returning to the mine before the statutory period stated in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, has elapsed between the finishing of the shift and the commencing of the next?

Mr. BROWN: No case was reported during 1932 where a workman was alleged to have been required to commence a shift before the expiry of twenty-four hours from the commencement of the previous shift. One such case has been reported during 1933 to date.

Mr. TINKER: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many cases of alleged illegal overtime have been reported to his Department in 1933; in how many of them has it been decided to prosecute in the law courts; and in how many has it been decided to warn the colliery owners against continuing the practice

Mr. BROWN: Seven complaints alleging illegal overtime at individual collieries have been received during 1933 to date.
In no case has it been decided to take legal proceedings. I am not quite clear what the hon. Member means by "warning" colliery owners. If something is discovered which, while not a breach of the law, is considered undesirable or contrary to the spirit of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, the attention of the manager is called to it. In the case of a complaint of illegal overtime or of a routine inspection of the register, even if no breach of the law is found, the investigation itself serves to direct the attention of the management to the subject. There is, however, no practice of issuing official "warnings."

QUOTA SYSTEM.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Coalowners' Association have yet submitted proposals for amending Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and, if so, will he state the Government attitude towards them?

Mr. E. BROWN: The position is as it was when I replied on 27th June to similar questions by the hon. Members for Widnes (Mr. Robinson) and for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Did not the hon. Member lead the House to believe that unless the coalowners made up their minds to some amendment of Part I the Government had made up their mind that they would take action?

Mr. BROWN: If my hon. Friend will consult me, I will send him the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on that question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: How much longer is the hon. Member going to allow the coal-owners to destroy themselves, and the miners as well, in this process before doing something?

Mr. BROWN: There are times when patience is the best policy.

Mr. ROBINSON: Will the hon. Member do his best to get this question settled?

Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend knows that I am fully aware of the urgency and difficulties of the question.

IMPORT DUTIES, CANADA.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs,
if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the Canadian import duties on British bituminous coal?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am not yet in a position to add to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) on 20th June. The matter is receiving close consideration.

Mr. WHITE: Having regard to the delays which have taken place, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Dominion Government?

Mr. THOMAS: Since the arrival in this country of the representatives of the. Dominions almost daily conversations have taken place, and there is an arrangement to discuss this and other matters outstanding while the representatives are in this country.

SELLING AGENCIES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new companies have been formed as selling agencies to distribute coal since the passing of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and how many of the said companies are subsidiary where all the capital belongs to colliery companies?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how we can ascertain how many selling agencies have been established in the past few years? Is he aware that selling agencies are being established all over the country with a definite view of avoiding the terms of the 1930 Act?

Dr. BURGIN: The question asked was about new companies. Since the time mentioned in the question something under 30,000 companies have been registered. It is obviously impracticable to go through those and endeavour to correlate them to colliery companies. The practice to which the hon. Member refers is not unknown.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain exactly how many of these selling agencies have been
already established so that the Secretary for Mines will know whether, and if so when, he can take action to see that Part I of the Coal Mines Act is carried out?

Dr. BURGIN: Any proper collaboration with the Secretary for Mines will certainly be undertaken.

COAL-PRODUCED MOTOR SPIRIT.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 1.
asked the Secretary for Mines, whether he will give an estimate of the coal to be utilised in the first five years following the introduction of the guaranteed preference for the production of oil from coal; and whether it is intended to set any limit to the quantity which may be produced by any method of oil production

Mr. E. BROWN: I regret that it is not practicable to prepare an estimate on the lines suggested. It is not intended to set any limit to the quantity of motor spirit which may obtain the advantage of the guarantee announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the reply he gave on Monday, 17th July, to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie).

SHALE OIL INDUSTRY.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many men were employed in the shale-mining and oil industry at the end of the War; how many are at present employed; and whether any estimate has been prepared of the increased number of men who will be engaged in the industry within a reasonable period as a result of the new guarantee given by the Government?

Mr. E. BROWN: Just after the end of the War it is estimated that about 9,500 persons were employed in the Scottish shale oil industry. Since December last a scheme has been in operation under which as many employs as practicable work three consecutive weeks and are idle for the fourth week. Under this scheme employment has been found for nearly 900 additional men, making the present total numbers employed about 4,100. I am unable to give any estimate of the probable effect of the guarantee on future employment in this industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he would be prepared to accept a. lump-sum payment in settlement of the financial dispute with the Irish Free State; and, if so, what amount?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: As I have frequently stated and now repeat, the Government have always been prepared to consider any suggestion which may lead to a comprehensive and satisfactory settlement of the questions outstanding with the Irish Free State; but I do not think that it would conduce to the end which we desire for me to make any statement in advance in regard to any particular method of settlement. I would remind my hon. Friend that the financial matter is not the only one outstanding with the Irish Free State; there are also important political issues involved.

Mr. LEVY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if any exchange of views, direct or indirect, is now going on or is contemplated between this country and the Irish Free State regarding the financial dispute; and whether he is in a position to make any statement?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not in a position to add anything to previous statements.

Mr. LEVY: May I take it that in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's recent statement there will be no abandonment of this country's reasonable attitude in this matter

Mr. THOMAS: No door will be closed to a settlement; the position of the British Government in this matter is well understood in this country and in Ireland.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will state the figures showing the tonnage of coal exports to the Irish Free State from Bristol Channel ports and from the United Kingdom for the year June, 1932, to June, 1933; and what steps he is taking regarding the loss of trade arising from the transfer of Irish orders to Continental countries?

Mr. THOMAS: The total tonnage of coal exported from this country to the Irish Free State for the 12 months ending the 30th June, 1933, was 1,446,631 tons, of which 2S5,601 were exported from Bristol Channel ports. As regards the
second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on the 21st June last.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it true from those figures that the exports from the Bristol Channel and from the United Kingdom have fallen to one-half of what they were in the previous year?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not had the opportunity of checking them, but I think it is true to say that the exports are down.

Mr. GRENFELL: In view of this enormous drop of more than 1,000,000 tons in exports, will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps himself to bring this dispute to an end?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend was not present earlier when a specific question was put to me on that question.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend has done everything he can in and out of season to bring this dispute to an end?

Oral Answers to Questions — MIGRANT LAND SETTLEMENT, AUSTRALIA.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs who are to be the British representatives at the conference in connection with the grievances of the British settlers in the State of Victoria, Australia; and whether any special instructions have been given to them?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) on 18th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND.

Mr. PARKINSON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state the reasons for the order of banishment from his territory served 'n 1931 on Chief Sebele II of the Bakwena nation; and whether he will order the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate this matter?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The reason for this order was that, in consequence of
Sebele's maladministration of the affairs of his tribe in respect of which he had been repeatedly warned by the Administration, his presence in the Bakwena Reserve constituted a danger to the peace, order and good government of the Territory. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where this chief is now? Is he attending any conference?

Mr. PARKINSON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the importance of his having the concurrence of the Bechuana chiefs and native advisory council in laying down the position of the chiefs' courts, he will approve of the submission to these courts of draft proclamations by His Excellency the High Commissioner dealing with important questions concerning the jurisdiction of the courts without previous consultation with the chiefs?

Mr. THOMAS: These draft Proclamations have already been laid before the Native Advisory Council, and the High Commissioner for South Africa has recently reported that it was proposed to hold a further meeting of the council early this month for the purpose of discussing them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Captain DOWER: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the possible convening of a conference between British and Japanese industrialists with regard to Japanese trade competition?

Captain P. MACDONALD: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make any statements with regard to the progress of the preliminary Anglo-Japanese commercial negotiations?

Dr. BURGIN: My right hon. Friend was able to send a reply on 20th July to the Note from the Japanese Government on this subject which was received some little time ago. I should explain that in that Note the Japanese Government indicated that the Japanese interests con-
cerned agreed, subject to certain limitations which have since formed the subject of informal discussion, to the proposed meetings between industries so far as they might relate to cotton textiles.
The proposal which is under consideration is that there should be a tripartite discussion in India in the near future between representatives of the industries concerned of Lancashire, India and Japan, covering the whole field of all classes of textiles in which of these countries are interested. These discussions will relate to the Indian market and to the British Colonial markets in which India is interested. The proposal is made on the understanding that the discussions in India would be followed immediately by discussions in this country in regard to other textile markets between industrial representatives of this country and of Japan.
His Majesty's Government sincerely hope that the Japanese Government will be able to accept this proposal on behalf of the Japanese industry, and that by means of discussions of the kind contemplated it will be possible for the interests concerned to arrive at a satisfactory agreement.

Captain DOWER: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the Governments will also be represented at these industrial conferences

Dr. BURGIN: I could not do so without notice.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the, hon. Gentleman give us some indication as to the time it will take to conclude the proceedings and when we may expect a decision at the end of it all?

Dr. BURGIN: I can only say that the matter will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Japanese Government be asked to give an undertaking that it will in future honour its obligations?

Mr. LEVY: In these discussions will the Empire markets, other than this country, also be dealt with, as far as the Japanese menace is concerned?

Dr. BURGIN: I cannot say whether that will take place in these discussions. It certainly will be borne in mind. My
main answer related to a particular discussion.

Mrs. COPELAND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Dominion markets Japanese competition is so fierce that 21-piece services can be sold at 2s. 5d. a set, whereas the lowest price at which they can be produced by British labour is 12s. 6d.?

Dr. BURGIN: The Department is fully alive to the matters to which the lion. Lady refers.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will this conference deal not only with textile goods but also with engineering?

MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY (EXPORTS, SPAIN).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the effect on the sale of British motor cars of the new Franco-Spanish trade agreement; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

Dr. BURGIN: My attention has been drawn to the effect of the agreement referred to, and representations in the matter have been addressed to the Spanish Government.

Mr. SMITH: Seeing that the British motor car industry has been so successful recently in extending its export trade, including that to Spain, will the hon. Gentleman take any possible steps to remove this handicap which has been created in favour of France

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.

COTTON INDUSTRY (IMPORT DUTIES, CHINA).

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken by his Department to prevent the injury to the export cotton trade of Lancashire by the imposition of new duties by China?

Dr. BURGIN: Questions arising out of these new duties have been discussed with the Chinese Minister of Finance during his recent visit to this country, and these discussions will be continued.

Sir J. HASLAM: Has it been pointed out to China that in attempting to hurt an enemy country she is penalising a country that has been one of her best friends in the past?

Dr. BURGIN: I have no doubt that that consideration has been borne in mind.

PLUMBAGO IMPORTS.

Sir J. HAS LAM: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the House the weight and value of the imports of plumbago during 1932; what proportion came from Ceylon; what duty is charged on the imports from foreign sources; and if any duty is charged on supplies received from Ceylon?

Dr. BURGIN: During 1932, the total imports into this country of natural plumbago amounted to 9,019 tons, of a declared value of £126,196, of which 1,196 tons valued at £13,526, were consigned from Ceylon. Duty at the rate of lo per cent. ad valorem is charged on plumbago of foreign origin on importation into this country. Plumbago from Ceylon would be eligible for admission free of duty subject to compliance with the statutory conditions of Imperial Preference.

Sir J. HASLAM: Will my hon. Friend point out to Ceylon how impossible the present position is, seeing that they are playing fast and loose? They are trying to be inside the Empire and out of it. They must stop in or get out. They cannot have all the advantages of Imperial Preference and yet penalise our goods going into their country?

Dr. BURGIN: That is a matter of policy which hardly comes under the Board of Trade. The question I answered was a specific question.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cases have been brought to his notice, during the present year of applying to goods of foreign origin the title British; and what action has been taken in each case?

Dr. BURGIN: I have received a number of complaints alleging the misuse of the description "British." Many of these allegations prove on investigation to be groundless, but in four cases proceedings have been instituted and convictions obtained.

Colonel GOODMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that tooth brushes with
the handles marked faintly "Made in Japan" and in heavy lettering" Made in Canada," enclosed in cartons also marked" Made in Canada" are being sold in London to-day?

Dr. BURGIN: I understand that samples of the goods to which the hon. Member refers are obtainable. The case is under consideration.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: When the Board of Trade are making an investigation in a case of this kind, do they go to the culprits themselves for information

Dr. BURGIN: I think there is no limit to the resources of the Board of Trade in obtaining information.

RABBITS AND RABBIT TRAPS (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. MANDER: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that there has been a large increase in the import of Australian rabbits into England as a result of the Ottawa Agreements, while British rabbit traps are still excluded from Australia by a prohibitive tariff; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. There has been a continuous increase in the importation of Australian rabbits into the United Kingdom during the last five years. This trade is not, however, directly affected by the Ottawa Agreements. With regard to the last part of the question concerning the importation of rabbit traps into Australia, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

Mr. MANDER: Will my hon. and gallant Friend give the House an assurance that this matter will be borne in mind when the question of revising the Ottawa Agreements comes up in 1934

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend inquire from his right hon. Friend why only one-tenth of the rabbits were imported in June this year as compared with June of last year?

LONDON QUARANTINE STATION.

Captain DOWER: 15.
(for Mr. JAMES DUNCAN) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if be will make a statement as to the future of the London
Quarantine Station after the termination of the period covered by the grant made by the Empire Marketing Board?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The continuance or otherwise of the grant made from the Empire Marketing Fund to the London Quarantine Station, as of other grants made from the fund, will fall to be considered when a decision is reached as to the future of the Empire Marketing Board. I am not in a position to say more at present.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman keep any greyhounds there?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

GRAIN CARGOES (SHIFTING BOARDS).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many foreign ship-owners have been summoned, during a period of 12 months to the nearest convenient date, for bringing grain cargoes in bulk to the United Kingdom without shifting boards; and in how many cases was the full penalty imposed?

Dr. BURGIN: During the past 12 months proceedings have been taken against 22 masters of foreign ships for failure to comply with the precautions required by the Merchant Shipping Acts when carrying grain cargoes. In all cases convictions were obtained and in 15 cases the full penalty was imposed.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is the hon. 'Gentleman aware that it is cheaper to break the law than to keep it, and does he propose to make the penalty heavy enough to deter this lawbreaking?

Dr. BURGIN: I think all that is matter for discussion. The penalty when the case is tried summarily is £100. When proceedings are taken by indictment the penalty is £300. But proceedings by indictment are not really applicable in cases against foreign shipowners.

REGISTRATION.

Mr. RANKIN: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of ships flying the British flag which are not registered at ports in Great Britain?

Dr. BURGIN: The number of vessels registered under Part I of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, that remained on the register at ports of the British Empire, outside Great Britain, at the end of the year 1932 was about 18,550.

COASTAL TRADE (FOREIGN VESSELS).

Mr. RANKIN: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the prejudicial effect of the intervention of foreign vessels, particularly motor vessels, in the home-coasting trade; and whether he proposes to consider remedial measures?

Dr. BURGIN: Tills matter has received very full consideration, but I do not think that it would be to the advantage of British shipping as a whole to take the remedial measures which have been suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH CLAIMS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the representatives of the Russian Soviet Government, with whom he is negotiating, have yet defined their attitude with regard to the claims of British nationals?

Dr. BURGIN: The attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter, as set out in the reply given on 10th July to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was made clear to the Soviet representatives at the outset of the negotiations for a new trade agreement. I am not in a position to say anything further on the subject.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the fact that in previous negotiations the Soviet representatives have declined to define their attitude—that is the phrase used by the Foreign Secretary—is it not desirable, as a preliminary to any further negotiations, that they should be finally asked to define their attitude to the claims of British nationals?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Have the British Government defined their attitude towards Russian claims?

Dr. BURGIN: My answer is quite clear. The whole attitude of the British Government in this matter was made clear to the Soviet representatives at the
outset of the negotiations for a new trade agreement.

Sir W. DAVISON: The hon. Gentleman realises that what I am asking about is the attitude of the Soviet representatives to British claims?

Dr. BURGIN: The answer to that question is that the negotiations are proceeding.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: What reply have the Soviet representatives made?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That Britain is to hand over Constantinople to Russia.

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

Sir A. KNOX: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in the trade agreement now under negotiation with the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics he will retain for our Government the power to prohibit the import of goods the price of which would endanger the standard of living of British workers?

Dr. BURGIN: As my hon. and gallant Friend has already been informed, his representations on this point have been noted.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the President of the Board of Trade, who is absent from the House today, the great difficulty of controlling imports from Russia merely by tariffs, owing to sweating conditions in Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

WESTERN ISLES (MEDICAL SERVICE).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the communication sent to him from the Midland and Scottish Air Ferries, Limited, with regard to the proposal for an air ambulance service between the Western Isles and Glasgow for the conveyance of urgent cases to the city hospitals; is he aware that the company are prepared to co-operate with the Department of Health and the St. Andrew's Ambulance Association in any scheme which will facilitate the removal of urgent cases to the hospitals; and will he call a conference of the parties con-
cerned with a view to the establishment of the service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, the Department of Health propose to arrange a meeting with representatives of the Midland and Scottish Air Ferries, Limited, to discuss the experience which the Company have already gained in operating an air ambulance service in the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British Red Cross Society, in conjunction with the Government, has already supplied an aeroplane for the Manchester district and that there is also one flying from Croydon on a service of this kind; and Willy then should there be this holding-up of something similar in Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: So far from there being any holding-up of the matter, we are engaged in inquiring into it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that I have been raising this matter on the Floor of the House for the past two months; and has he only reached the stage of inquiring into it?

Mr. SKELTON: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for the steps he has taken.

Mr. THOMAS RAMSAY: Will the hon. Gentleman see, that in all matters affecting the medical and surgical services of the Western Isles, due regard will always be paid to the views of the local medical officers and of the boards of management of the various hospitals in the Isles, who have had practical experience of such cases in the past; and will he also consider the views of the local district councils who know the geographical and transport conditions?

Mr. SKELTON: In previous answers to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) I have laid emphasis on the difficulties. All relevant considerations will of course be taken into consideration.

IMPORTED MEAT (SAMPLE)

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether
he is aware that on 16th January, 1933, a sample of veal was extracted from a consignment at Leith Docks, ex steamship "Horsa," from Copenhagen, in pursuance of the Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations (Scotland), 1925; that the authority concerned has failed to make any payment for the said sample; and whether he will take steps to ensure that in future payment shall be made for any samples extracted from consignments of imported articles?

Mr. SKELTON: I am informed that this sample of tinned veal, of which the approximate estimated value is ls. 6d., was taken by an officer of the local authority acting under the powers conferred by Part III of the Regulations dealing with the importation of articles of food, and that the Act under which the Regulations are made does not require payment for samples of such imports.

Mr. FOOT: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that when samples are taken they should be paid for?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: And does he not think the Danes send so much over here that they could afford an occasional ls. 6d. tin of veal as a sample; and is not better veal to be had in this country, in Scotland as well as England?

REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH.

Mr. GUY: 35 and 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he is aware that, owing to the vacancies on the staff of the Register House, Edinburgh, serious arrears have accumulated in the recording of deeds in the Sasine Register; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the question of staff reorganisation proposals and recruitment;
(2) if he can state the present position as regards the negotiations for improving the conditions of service of the second-class clerks at the Register House; and if he is aware that until this is effected there can be no prospect of recruiting this department up to strength with suitably-qualified personnel?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am aware of the arrears of work in the Register of Sasines and of the urgent necessity for the recruitment of additional staff for both the Sasines and Record Departments of the Register House. The proposals for
staff reorganisation have been further discussed with the staff representatives and I hope that a conclusion will be reached at an early date and that it will be found possible early next month to invite applications from suitably-qualified persons to fill the vacancies in the new establishment.

Mr. GUY: In view of the fact that the negotiations have lasted now for over two years, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps, when a final settlement is reached, to have it 'ante-dated to April of this year?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am afraid I could not give my hon. Friend that undertaking.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if the additional staff is taken on, they will be able to deal in an adequate way with the Scottish records which are now in a disgraceful condition?

Sir G. COLLINS: I hope so.

HOUSING (JOHNSTONE AND KILSYTH).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many 1930 Act houses have been completed in Johnstone and Kilsyth; how many are in course of construction; what are the rents charged for the different classes of houses in the respective burghs; and will he consider the advisability of urging other towns to proceed with schemes similar to those of Johnstone and Kilsyth?

Mr. SKELTON: I am sending the hon. Member a statement giving the information asked for in the first three parts of the question. As regards the last part, the Department of Health keep constantly under review the housing situation throughout Scotland and draw the attention of the local authorities to the conditions in their areas wherever that appears to be necessary. I should add that the response of local authorities is in general satisfactory.

ALLOTMENTS, GALSTON (RENTS).

Mr. LEONARD: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what price per acre was to have been paid to the owners for the plots in December, 1932, offered to unemployed miners in Galston, Ayrshire; whether he is aware that many applications from miners were received
but were unanimously refused when the Department asked them to pay at the rate of £2 8s. per acre; and whether steps will be taken to supply suitable land for unemployed Galston miners at a reasonable rent?

Sir G. COLLINS: The average rent per acre payable by the Department was £1 17s. 5d. equivalent to 4d. a week per half acre. In addition the Department had to meet charges for compensation to agricultural tenants and equipment. Plots were offered to applicants at a rent of 5½d. a week for a half-acre plot, including equipment, or £2 8s. per acre per annum, the first season to be rent free. As the result of representations by the applicants it was decided, as a special concession, to reduce the charge to 4d. a week per half acre which covered only the rental payable by the Department without any consideration for other outlays. This offer was not accepted and no further application for plots have been received from the Galston area. As the hon. Member is aware, I am anxious to encourage -unemployed persons to take up these plots, but I am not in a position to authorise more favourable terms than those already offered by the Department in this case.

CINEMATOGRAPH EXHIBITIONS (CHILDREN).

Mr. STEVENSON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to state the result of his investigations as to the advisabiliy of taking steps, by regulations or otherwise, for preventing children and young per sons attending cinematograph exhibitions of films which have been passed by the censor as suitable for adults only; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to enable suitable regulations for that purpose to be brought into operation?

Sir G. COLLINS: As I stated on the 11th instant in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Guy) there is a possibility that the need for legislation way be avoided That aspect of the matter is now being explored, but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. STEVENSON: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to get some definite information on this question.

Sir G. COLLINS: I can assure the hon. Member that no time is being lost in this matter. We are in touch with the representatives of the various associations every week.

JITVELNILE OFFENDERS, GLASGOW (SENTENCES).

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, with reference to the sentences passed at Glasgow Central Police Court on 13th July on Thomas Hendry and six others, whether he has any information as to the number of occasions on which each of the boys, respectively, was warned by the police in respect of conduct similar to that for which they were convicted and as to the number and character of the complaints from local residents; whether he can say how many of the boys had never previously been charged in court with any offence; and whether he has any information as to the number of playing fields or other recreational facilities in the neighbourhood?

Sir G. COLLINS: All the accused referred to, with one exception, had been repeatedly warned by the police against disorderly conduct in the streets, and, in particular, with the foresaid exception, they were all so warned on the night when the offence was committed. During the month previous to the commission of the offence, 67 complaints were received from householders and others in the Central Police Court area of football playing by youths in the streets, of disorderly conduct, and of the use of obscene language, which was causing great offence to people in the neighbourhood. On one occasion the complaint of a householder was followed by a reprisal, the door of the house being smeared with filth.
In the present case the accused were charged with disorderly conduct and breach of the peace. The evidence disclosed that not only did they not desist from their disorderly conduct when warned, but that they used language in the presence of passers-by and children of so filthy and disgusting a description that it cannot be repeated in this House. In that situation, and having regard to the previous warnings and the numerous complaints from the neighbours, the magistrate imposed a sentence of 14 days' imprisonment. As regards the last part of the question, there are no less than 16
football pitches on Glasgow Green, which is within 300 yards of the locus of the offence.
Since this question was first raised, I have given the matter further consideration in the light of fuller information which has been put before me, and after consultation with the Law Officers I have decided to advise remission of the remainder of the sentences in the case of five of the accused, namely, Lavelle, Cairns, Wilson, Beattie and Chance, none of whom has a previous conviction. The sentences upon Hendry and O'Neill, each of whom has a previous conviction, must stand. I would add that I would not have advised remission of the sentences but for the absence of previous convictions in the case of the five accused, whose liberation has now been instructed.
These remissions, however, must not in any way be taken as indicating that I do not take a serious view of the offence of which the accused were convicted. On the contrary, it must be clearly understood that disorderly conduct of this kind in the streets of Glasgow will not be tolerated, and that the public will be protected against such disorder and obscenity as occurred in the present case.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SALT: 41 and 42.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) how many applications he received for pensions from ex-service men during the financial years ended 1931, 1932. and 1933; how many of the applicants were granted pensions in each of these years; and what was the cost;
(2) the number of men who served in the Great War who were in receipt of pensions at the end of the financial year 1923, and the corresponding number for the years ending 1931, 1932 and 1933; and what was the amount paid to these men in each of these years?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): As the answers to both these questions involve some detailed particulars, I propose, with the permission of the House, to circulate the replies in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the replies:

I. The following are the particulars as to (a) the number of applications for pension received from ex-service men during
certain years; (b) the number of applications which were granted; and (c) the capitalised cost of the pensions awarded:



(a)
(b)
(c)


1931
…
…
14,017
1,212
£520,000


1932
…
…
7,199
690
£320,000


1933
…
…
4,332
250
£140,000

II. The following are the particulars as to (a) the number of men who were in receipt of pensions at the end of the financial years 1923, 1931, 1932 and 1933; and (b) the amount paid to these men in each of these years:



(a)
(b)


1923
…
…
631,900
£36,880,000


1931
…
…
484,000
£26,523,000


1932
…
…
478,000
£26,097,000


1933
…
…
470,000
£25,113,000

EDUCATION (SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, STAINFORTH).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many school places are to be provided in the proposed new elementary school at Stainforth; and how many children are at present being taught in temporary schools?

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. In reply to the first part of the question, it is understood that the local education authority now contemplate that the new school should provide accommodation for 560 senior children. As regards the second part, as my hon. Friend informed the hon. Member when he wrote to him on the 1st May last, the number of children then accommodated in temporary buildings was 1,055. I understand that the new school will replace part of the temporary accommodation. The remainder is, I believe, in the adjoining Hatfield and Dunscroft district, and I am informed that the authority propose shortly to submit proposals for the reorganisation of the schools in that district.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to try to inspire the West Riding Education Committee to make ample accommodation for all these children?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I will certainly convey that request to my hon. Friend.

JUDGES' SALARIES.

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was obtained before the cuts in the Judges' salaries were made?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): It is not the practice to obtain the formal opinion of the Law Officers in advance of legislation, and the Law Officers of the Crown were not asked to give an opinion in this case before the reductions in the Judges' salaries were made. The matter was, however, considered by a committee of which the Attorney-General (Sir William Jowitt) was a member in September, 1931, when the Economy Bill and the reductions in the Judges' salaries were, with other matters, taken under consideration. The opinion of the Law Officers was taken after the Act and the Order in Council had become law.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the situation which has arisen, will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of making an appeal to the Judges to make such voluntary sacrifices of income as the national situation seems to demand, and restore the cut?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am obliged for my hon. Friend's suggestion.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MINISTERS' ABSENCE).

Mr. MANDER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister on what occasions since the present Government took office civil servants have been left in charge of Government Departments during the absence of a Minister for any length of time

Mr. BALDWIN: In all cases of Ministerial absences of any length of time, arrangements are made for matters requiring a Ministerial decision to be referred to some other Minister or Ministers.

Mr. MANDER: Will my right hon. Friend say why Sir Robert Vansittart, a permanent civil servant, has been placed in charge of the Foreign Office, and whether the very competent Under-Secretary of State should not be in charge of it? Who is the Minister responsible for the Foreign Office while the Foreign Secretary is away?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Prime Minister or myself.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this rather reprehensible habit was, in all probability, started by Mr. Gladstone in 1880 something?

EXCHANGE RATES (STERLING AND THE FRANC).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to the tieing of sterling to the franc and the attitude towards this stabilisation of the Dominion Governments and the Governments of those countries in the sterling area?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): There is no truth in any suggestion that sterling is tied to the franc. The policy of His Majesty's Government, as my right hon. Friend has often stated, is to prevent frequent and wide fluctuations in the exchange due to purely speculative influences. No inference can be drawn from the fact that the fluctuations in the gold value of sterling are not very wide at this particular time. My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that the Dominion Governments and the Governments of countries in the sterling area see any objection to the policy stated above.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that during the last six months the £ has remained constant in value of francs; and will he answer the second part of my question, as to whether the Dominion Governments particularly wish that constant valuation with the franc to remain, or whether they are anxious to see a more suitable and lower valuation of the £?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the second part of my right hon. and gallant Friend's question depends on the first part, and, as I have informed him, the first part is unfounded. Sterling is not tied to the franc.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has it not in actual fact remained constant in relation to the franc for the last six months?

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (RECORDS).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the price of the unrevised proofs of minutes of evidence taken before the Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform is in some cases as much as 2s. for one day's evidence; that this is the same price as that charged for the Proposals for Indian Constitutional Reform, Cmd. 4268, to the price of which exception was taken before by hon. Members; and, seeing that the evidence published at 2s. contains about half the number of pages of Cmd. 4268 and is an unrevised proof on cheap paper with a paper cover, whether he can see his way to getting the price reduced?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The price of the 24 daily parts of the evidence so far taken before the Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform, and its Sub-Committees, has ranged from 6d. to 2s. in accordance with the authorised scale for pricing Parliamentary Papers. The evidence is printed in double columns and in smaller type than Command Paper 4268, which was priced at 2s. under the same scale, and I see no sufficient reason for departing from the scale in this case.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does not my hon. Friend realise the great importance of the evidence that is being laid before the Joint Select Committee, and that it is the first time the discussion of this very important question is being heard; and how is it possible to expect the circulation which he wishes the evidence should have if the price remains as high as it is?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am quite aware of the importance of the evidence, and I think it highly commendable that these papers should be read by everybody, but at the same time the taxpayer cannot be expected to subsidise everybody's literary tastes.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case, however, that the prices of these publications are based on the assumption that each of them will have the same circulation, and that no provision is made for selling more cheaply when a larger circulation can be obtained?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH CAPITAL).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Argentine national and provincial Governments have yet discharged the overdue debts owing to the railways operated in Argentina with British capital in accord with the arrangements arrived at during the Anglo-Argentine trade agreement discussions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The amounts falling due, from time to time, to the British railway companies from the Argentine National and Provincial Governments are by way of current account for freights and charges, and are discharged, also from time to time, in the normal way. I understand that substantial collections in cash, bills and bonds have been effected in certain cases in recent months from the National Government. There is no direct connection between this matter and the terms of the Anglo-Argentine Convention and Protocol of the 1st May last, except in so far as an improvement in the general position of the railways may be expected to follow the conclusion of that agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour how the number of insured persons now in employment compares with the number 10 years ago?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): It is estimated provisionally that at 26th June, 1933, there were approximately 516,000 more insured workpeople in employment than at 25th June, 1923.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to give the comparative figures for each area in which is situated a sugar-beet factory, showing the number of applications made for transitional payments and the number of applicants refused benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as I have been able to obtain on the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: Shall I receive the information asked for showing the comparative position of my own constituency and others where sugar-beet factories are situated?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant friend will have a look at the very full report which I have got in answer to his question and which, I may say, involved an immense amount of labour.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: Thank you.

Following is the information:


SUGAR BEET FACTORY WORKERS, SEASON, 1932–33.


District
Number of claims for benefit or transitional payments since end of season.
Number of claims disallowed under Seasonal Workers Regulation.


South Eastern.


Cantle
488
66


Ely
460
55


Felstearl
230
45


Bury St. Edmunds
320
77


Ipswich
380
69


Kings Lynn
307
1


Wissington


Total (South Eastern)
2,185
313


Midlands.


Kidderminster
Information not availblle.
Nil


Shropshire
210
71


Nottingham (Colwick)
Information not availblle.
2


Peterborough
400
1


Total (Midlands)
Not available
74


North Eastern.


Scunthorpe (Brigg)
210
6


Selby
156
Nil


Boston (Spalding)
370
52


York (Poppleton)
180
Nil


Lincoln (Bardney)
180
43


Total (North Eastern)
1,096
101


Scotland.


(Cupar)
Nil
Nil

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (MILITARY STORES).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he
is aware that Iraq has broken her treaty obligations of training and equipping her army on British lines by placing her orders for military stores with Japanese mills; and will he state what steps he proposes to take to ensure a fair market for British goods in Iraq?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend no doubt has in mind the relevant section of the Military Annexure to the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of the 30th June, 1930, whereby Iraq undertakes that the armament and essential equipment of her forces shall not differ in type from those of His Majesty's Forces. I am not aware of the exact nature of the military stores which Iraq has ordered from Japanese mills, but I have no reason to believe that the order infringes the provisions of the treaty to which I have referred. As regards the second part of the question, United Kingdom goods have the right to most-favoured-nation treatment in Iraq and I have never heard any suggestion that the Iraqi Government are not fulfilling their obligations in this respect.

Mr. HANNON: Surely in view of the intimate relations between this country and Iraq one would expect that a preference would be given to British articles for the Iraq army; and what steps is the hon. Gentleman taking to see that that is being carried out?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am concerned with the Treaty provisions, and I am convinced that the Treaty provisions have not been infringed.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Have any representations been made to the Government of Iraq in respect of the order which they have given to Japan for army clothing in view of the fact that it would appear to be contrary to these particular treaty provisions?

Mr. EDEN: My reply was that, so far as I am aware, it is not contrary to the Treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the number of able-bodied persons between the ages of 58 and 63 who are in receipt of public assistance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DEATH-RATE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.

Mr. L. SMITH: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the report of the Medical Officer of Health for Stockton-on-Tees that the average death-rate of a population transferred from slum areas to new hygienic conditions showed an increase; and whether his Department possesses information substantiating this conclusion or the reverse?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: This report has been fully considered and as promised in his reply of the 11th May to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) my right hon. Friend has caused inquiries to be made in other areas. These inquiries tend to show that the conditions reported in Stockton-on-Tees are exceptional. The experience in other towns where inquiries have been made shows that slum clearance and re-housing are normally associated with a substantial improvement in health, particularly in the case of children.

Mr. SMITH: Will my hon. Friend cause to be published the health reports to which he refers?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I will consider that.

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. LOGAN: 61.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Liverpool needs at once 10,000 to 15,000 houses at an inclusive rental of 10s. to 12s. per week and 2,000 additional per year; whether he has considered the resolution submitted to him of a eonTerence of house builders at Liverpool repudiating the possibility of houses being built in that area at economical rents within the capacity of the working classes without reasonable revision of the restriction on density; and what action, if any, does he intend to take in regard to restricting the density and assisting the Liverpool authorities to get out their own plans to meet the housing shortage I

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is aware of a Press statement to
the effect of the first part of this question. My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the resolution referred to, and he is informing the city council that he is willing to consider any reasonable proposals on the subject of density they may think it desirable to submit to him.

Mr. LOGAN: Apart from slum clearance, if private builders fail to carry out what is expected of them, will the hon. Gentleman advise the local bodies to get on with the work?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Of course, if private enterprise does not take advantage of the unique opportunity, we shall consider the whole position again.

GAMBIA (JIMMAY GI1tKAN).

Mr. PARKINSON: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received a report from the Governor of Gambia regarding the deportation of Jimmay Girkan, who claims to be a British subject

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The man in question was convicted of being a prohibited immigrant and deported accordingly. His claim to be a native of the Gambia was not upheld by the Supreme Court of the Colony, to which the case was carried on appeal.

Mr. MANDER: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that during the Recess deportation orders will not be applied to any Jimmies well known in this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

CONSTITUTION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement as to the rescission of the Malta constitution?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the express views of the Chief of Police, and owing to the attitude towards the teaching of English and Italian, the people of this country are getting increasingly anxious as to the Italianisation of a British colony?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This House unanimously approved the course which His Majesty's Government took with regard to the teaching of English in Malta. That will be strictly carried out.

Lieut. -Commander BOWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the existing Maltese Government the fact that he does not propose to depart in any way from the unanimous decision of this House in view of the fact that the Maltese Government have more than once given an indication that they imagine he is going to rescind this Ordinance?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the Maltese Government understand perfectly well that there can be no question of modifying in the slightest possible degree the unanimous decision of this House. The Government and the House have no intention of departing in the faintest degree from that decision.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries in Malta as to the Fascist influence in the administration at the present time?

ROYAL MALTA ARTILLERY.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: 31.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give the rates of retired pay of captains, majors, and lieutenant-colonels of the Royal Malta Artillery at the present time and how they compare with the pre-war rates; whether the cost of living on which those rates are based is comparable with the cost of living in Malta; and will he give an assurance that the retired pay of these officers will not be lower than the retired pay authorised by the royal warrant at the time these officers received their commissions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The present rates are not strictly comparable with the pre-war rates since they vary according to length of service and also include a rank element for each year served in the rank of major or lieutenant-colonel. The maximum standard rates are £250 for a captain, £350 for a major, and £480 for a lieutenant-colonel. The maximum rates for these ranks before the War were £200, £300 and £450
respectively. The present rates are not based on the cost of living, but 20 per cent. of these rates is variable for changes in the cost of living at home. With regard to the last part of the question, an officer serving on the active list of the Army under a permanent regular commission at the time of an amendment to the pay warrant has the right on retirement to the rates in force on the day before the date of the amendment in accordance with the substantive rank he held on that day.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Is my hon. Friend aware that his excellency the Governor of Malta ma—de very strong representations to the Army Council on the grievances of these officers, and will he inquire further into the grievances from which they think they are suffering?

Mr. COOPER: I have inquired very deeply into this case, and I am well aware that the officers consider that they are suffering under a grievance. I think they have a strong case, but unfortunately it is not in my power to rectify it.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (POWERS).

Mr. BERNAYS: 45.
(for Mr. MALLALIEU) asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to propose the setting up of a committee in each House of Parliament to scrutinise every Bill containing a provision for conferring legislative powers on a Minister and every regulation made under such powers and ordered to be laid before Parliament, as recommended at page 63 of the Donoughmore Committee's Report?

Mr. BALDWIN: The position is as stated, in the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on the 20th February last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Captain Dower).

IRISH LAND ANNUITIES.

Mr. LOGAN: 48 and 49.
(for Mr. HEALY) asked the Caancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he can indicate how much of their indebtedness the farmers of Northern Ireland have discharged under the Land Acts by the investment of the
Sinking Fund at the current rates of compound interest or by the purchasing and cancellation of the 2¾ per cent. Land Stock; and will he now consider charging them only on the balance due;
(2) whether, as interest earned on the Sinking Fund in connection with the Irish land annuities has increased above the rate assumed at the passing of those Acts, he will state by what amount the Treasury has benefited in consequence; and will he consider extending the advantage of the increased earnings to the tenant farmers of Northern Ireland, either by a shortening of the period or a reduction of the yearly annuities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Under the Irish Land Acts, 1903 to 1909, a fixed annuity (which includes a sinking fund of 10s. per cent.) is payable by the tenant-purchaser until the whole of the advance in question has been repaid by means of the accumulated sinking fund. The amount of the sinking funds accumulated towards the discharge of advances in respect of which such annuities are payable by the farmers in Northern Ireland amounted at 31st March last to approximately £2,135,000. There is no power to reduce these annuities, but, as stated above, they will cease to be payable as soon as the advance has been repaid, and any increase in the rate of accumulation above the standard rate does not benefit the Treasury, but will automatically shorten the period for which the annuities are payable.

ROAD TRANSPORT (LORRY DRIVER'S PROSECUTION).

Mr. TOM SMITH: 56.
(for Mr. THORNE) asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a lorry driver of Chatham, Kent, was recently fined £1 at Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, for obstruction with his lorry; if he is aware of the statement made by the man in connection with the long hours he had been working, and that in consequence of the ease being reported the man has been dismissed from his employment; and what action he intends taking in thematter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I have seen reports in the Press of this case and I
am causing inquiries to be made into the matter.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Third Report from the Select Committee brought up, And rea,d; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, without Amendment,

Electricity (Supply) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (Elgin and Lossiemouth and Southwold) Bill, with an Amendment,

Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation (Temporary Provisions) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Barking Corporation Bill [Lords],

Rhondda Passenger Transport Bill [Lords],

Wimbledon Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ELGIN AND LOSSIEMOUTH AND SOUTHWOLD) BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 161].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [24th July].

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933.

CLASS VI.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £136,079, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £309,104, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, loans to Co-operative Societies, a grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, a grant in respect of the Hebridean Drifter Service, and certain grants-in-aid."

CLASS III.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £28,449, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice, and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £37,939,000 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."

CLASS I.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,266,854, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. House of Lords Offices
25,094


2. House of Commons
222,502


3. Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts
165,000


4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
184,726


5. Privy Council Office
7,113


6. Charity Commission
25,699


7. Civil Service Commission
16,312


8. Exchequer and Audit Department
90,810


9. Friendly Societies' Deficiency
5,989


10. Government Actuary
21,009


11. Government Chemist
46,707


12. Government Hospitality
4,000


13. The Mint
10,000


14. National Debt Office
383


15. National Savings Committee
54,381


16. Public Record Office
24,403


17. Public Works Loan Commission
90


18. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
42,149


19. Royal Commissions, etc
46,190


20. Miscellaneous Expenses
630


21. Secret Service
100,000


22. Treasury Chest Fund
12,428


23. Scottish Office
52,429


24. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
18,810



£1,266,854"

CLASS II.

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,605,981, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Foreign Office
124,278


2. Diplomatic and Consular Services
664,060


3. League of Nations
84,900


4. Dominions Office
34,450


5. Dominion Services..



6 Irish Free State Services
1,149,447


7 Empire Marketing
130,000


8 Oversea Settlement
29,325


9 Colonial Office
97,704


10 Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
462,079


11 Colonial Development Fund, etc.
250,000


12 India Office
95,695


13 Imperial War Graves Commission
433,880



£3,605,981"

CLASS III.

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,235,748, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934,
for Expenditure in respect ofincluded in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Home Office
307,251


2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
43,047


3. Police, England and Wales
5,141,915


4. Prisons, England and Wales
445,063


5. Approved Schools, &c., England and Wales
105,430


6. Supreme Court of Judicature, &c.
90


7. County Courts
90


8. Land Registry
90


9. Public Trustee
90


10. Law Charges
74,557


11. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
11,718


Scotland.


12. Police
814,449


13. Prisons Department for Scotland
75,240


14. Approved Schools, &c.
31,776


15. Scottish Land Court
5,292


17. Register House, Edinburgh
90


Ireland.


18. Northern Ireland Services
4,808


19. Supreme Court of Judicature, &c., Northern Ireland
2,010


20. Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland
1,172,739



£8,235,748"

CLASS IV.

8. "That a sum, not exceeding£31,910,432, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1 Board of Education
26,561,901


2 British Museum
98,529


3 British Museum (Natural History)
58,504


4 Imperial War Museum
7,575


5 London Museum
3,606


6 National Gallery
15,614


7 National Portrait Gallery
5,079


8 Wallace Collection
6,516


9 Scientific Investigation, &c.
112,573


10 Universities and Colleges, Great Britain
915,000


Scotland.


11 Public Education
4,119,610


12 National Galleries
5,044


13 National Library
881



£31,910,432"

CLASS V.

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £73,761,628, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:—



£


1. Ministry of Health
13,200,445


2. Board of Control
83,891


3. Registrar General's Office
64,419


4. National Insurance Audit Department
108,390


5. Friendly Societies Registry
31,194


6. Old Age Pensions
25,375,000


7. Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions
8,000,000


8. Ministry of Labour
22,593,000


9. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
2,600,000


Scotland.


10. Department of Health
1,682,265


11. General Board of Control
10,923


12. Registrar General' Office
12,101



£73,761,628"

Class VI.

10. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,367,758, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:—



£


1. Board of Trade
104,911


2. Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade
90


3. Mercantile Marine Services
239,591


5. Department of Overseas Trade
245,478


6. Export Credits
90


7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
21,520


8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
1,165,624


9. Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain
2,850,000


10. Surveys of Great Britain
81,965


11. Forestry Commission
300,000


12. Ministry of Transport
30,796


13. Development Fund
240,000


14. Development Grants
700,000


15. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
337,281


16. State Management Districts.
90


Scotland.


18. Fishery Board
50,322



£6,367,758"

Class VII.

11. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,916,405, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £100)
156,960


2. Houses of Parliament Buildings
78,400


3. Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain
398,935


4. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £100)
110.425


5. Osborne
9,860


6. Office of Works and Public Buildings
379,660


7. Public Buildings, Great Britain
712,800


S. Public Buildings, Overseas
70,150


9. Royal Palaces
48,495


10. Revenue Buildings
864,715


11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
119,890


12. Rates on Government Property
976,502


13. Stationery and Printing
940.213


14. Peterhead Harbour
13,000


15. Works and Buildings in Ireland
36,400



£4,916,405"

Class VIII

12. "That a sum, not exceeding £30,267,418, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
212,282


2. Ministry of Pensions
28,200,000


3. Royal Trish Constabulary Pensions, &c.
896,057


4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
959,079



£30,267,418"

Class IX.

13. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,811,253, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1934, for Expenditure in
respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:—



£


1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
24,055,000


2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
3,756,253



£27,811,253"

Revenue Departments Estimates, 1933,

14. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,218,885, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the:31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—



£


1. Customs and Excise
3.464,300


2. Inland Revenue
4,7.54.585



£8.218,8S5"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1933.

15. "That a sum, not exceeding E35,692,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge Which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—



£


3 Medical Establishments and Services
369,800


4 Fleet Air Arm
1.089.000


5 Educational Services
194,500


6 Scientific Services
474,500


7 Royal Naval Reserves
355.000


8 Sec. 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c., Personnel
6,176,400


Sec. 2 Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &s., Materiel
4,579,200


Sec. 3 Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c., Contract Work
7,635,700


9 Naval Armaments
4,024.100


11 Miscellaneous Effective Services
560,000


12 Admiralty Office
1,090,200


13 Non -Effective Services (Naval and Marine) Officers
3,178,200


14 Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine) Men
4,889,100


15 Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities
1,073,200



£35,692.900"

ARMY ESTIMATES. 1933.

16 "That a sum, not exceeding £16,891,100, he granted to His Majesty, to
defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:—



£


2 Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
4,740,000


3 Medical Services
888,000


4 Educational Establishments
778,000


5 Quartering and Movements
1,232,000


6 Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts
3,958,000


7 Clothing
918,000


8 General Stores
1,137,000


9 Warlike Stores
2,437,000


12 War Office
803,000


Ordnance Factories
100



£16,891,100"

AIR ESTIMATES, 1933.

17. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,013,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:—



£


2. Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies and Transportation
1,487,00


5 Medical Services
285,000


6 Technical Training and Educational Services
384,000


7 Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
464,000


9. Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
358,000


10 Air Ministry
645,000


11 Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
390,000



£4,013,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.43 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: We make no apology for putting down the Mines Vote on the Report stage. When recently we had under consideration the Vote of the Secretary for Mines the Minister dealt very ably with the work of his Department, chiefly with questions of administration and safety, but whilst we endeavoured to draw him on the question of wages he was careful enough to avoid that question. Though we realise the need for continuing that discussion, in view of its importance, we do not propose to do so this afternoon. I want
to deal with what is, after all, the larger problem with which the mining industry is confronted, and which I feel sure the Minister and his Department have constantly before them. He, with us, must realise that the condition of the industry is gradually becoming worse. Whole areas are becoming derelict, and the population, especially in the exporting areas, is filled with despair.
It is interesting to note the decline in the number of persons employed in the mining industry as compared, say, with 1924. The latest returns indicate that at the present time there are just two-thirds as many men employed in this industry as were employed in 1924. It may have been thought from a reply given by the Minister of Labour recently that the number of registered unemployed in the mining industries is less than it was 12 months ago, but the actual facts are these. On 1st of July, 1932, there were 799,000 men employed, whereas on 1st July this year there were 765,000, or a reduction of no fewer than 25,000. It is true to say that at present there are fewer men employed in the mining industry than have been employed at any time in the past 35 or 40 years, and in the exporting areas, especially South Wales, we have to go back nearly 50 years to find a time when there were so few men employed. The same thing can be said of output. Last year the output of coal was lower than at any time since 1900. The output of coal in 1900 was 225,000,000 tons, and in 1932 it was 208,000,000 and the figures for the first six months of this year show a further decline of no less than nearly 4,000,000 tons as compared with the first six months of last year. If that decline continues it must mean that the output of coal in this country during 1933 will not be very much in excess of some 200,000,000 tons.
The position is the same in the case of the export trade. In the first six months of this year there was a decline in the export trade, compared with the first six months of last year, of nearly 1,500,000 tons. It would be unfair to leave the figures just there, however. One must make some comparison with the decline in the world output of coal. In 1932 there was a falling off of something like 300,000,000 tons in the world's output as compared with 1913. Almost all coal-producing countries shared in that decline. There are three exceptions. In
France the output was slightly in excess of 1913; in the Netherlands there was a considerable increase—from some 1,800,000 tons to 12,600,000 tons; and in Russia the output of coal doubled itself. The decline in the export trade is not alone responsible for the reduction in output in this country. Notwithstanding the development which has taken place, we find that the inland consumption of coal here is some 33,000,000 tons less than it was in 1913, and the decline is still continuing.
How the prophets of the pre-War years were misled as to the expansion of the coal output of this country. In 1913 it was estimated that if the rate of expansion of the export trade kept pace with the increase in the volume of the world's steam and motor tonnage the export trade of the United Kingdom would amount to about 100,000,000 tons. We, in South Wales, would have had an export trade of something like 40,000,000 tons. Such a prophet as Professor Jevons estimated in 1915 that in 1931 we should be exporting from this country 172,000,000 tons of coal; we actually exported 42,000,000 tons. What a difference there would have been if Professor Jevons' prophecy had been accurate, but unfortunately he, like a number of other people, did not take into account other factors which were gradually growing up for power production. He did not visualise the changes which were even then taking place. The scientist and the engineer have been at work, with the result that a revolution in power production has taken place. While it is true to say that king coal has not been entirely dethroned, the coal industry has, unfortunately, had a very bad shaking.
I do not wish to go too fully into the factors which are responsible for these changes, but I want to call the attention of the House to one or two of them. First of all, I will deal with power production generally. The energy production of the world in 1913 was almost entirely from coal. About 90 per cent. of all the power produced, for whatever purpose it was required—road, rail or marine transport, and industrial purposes—was from coal, and only 10 per cent. was produced from factors such as oil, gas, electricity and water. In 1918, we are told that just about 14 per cent. of power was produced from factors other
than coal, and something like 86 per cent. was produced from coal. What a change has taken place. The latest figures that one has been able to obtain indicate that at present something like 70 per cent. of the energy produced in the world for all purposes is produced from coal, and 30 per cent. from oil, electricity and gas. By electricity I mean electricity generated from water power. There has been an increase in the power created by oil, during the last six years, of about 6 per cent.
Some other countries are suffering in a very much greater degree than we. The latest statistics that one has received from America—may I say in passing that if one wishes to get statistics in regard to the changes that are taking place in world power production, one has unfortunately to go to America for them, because there is not a department in this country which is kept up-to-date with regard to the changes that are taking place—show that in America the power produced from coal is down to just 63 per cent., and that power produced from other factors has increased to 37 per cent. In those other factors of power production we are not nearly as fortunate as some of the other industrial countries. We do not possess oilfields which give us natural oils, we have little or no natural gas, and little or no water power. It is interesting to make a comparison with America in this connection. There is that great industrial nation, possessing 65 per cent. of the known oil resources of the world, 90 per cent. of the world's natural gas, and something like 40 per cent. of the water power.
Upon an occasion like this, one must deal with the increase in the production of oil, because almost simultaneously with the reduction in the output of coal in this and in other industrial countries there has been a very great increase in the production of oil. Some 50 years ago oil was almost negligible from the point of view of power production. In 1920, the world's output of oil was about 94,000,000 tons, whereas in 1930 it had increased to 200,000,000 tons. There has been a slight decline in the world's production of oil in the years 1931 and 1932. No: country has suffered more seriously from these changes than we have, for the reason that the changes are not only those which have taken place internally but those which have affected the export and
bunker trades which were such a valuable asset to this country when steamships were largely, or almost entirely, driven by coal. In 1913, 1,300,000 tons of shipping used oil as a fuel, whereas in 1932 nearly 50 per cent. of the world's shipping was using oil as fuel, thus displacing coal.
We know what inroads oil has made in connection with industrial production in this country. The predecessor of the present Secretary for Mines, in his speech introducing the Estimates last year, indicated the changes which have taken place. Unfortunately, we are not at the end of the inroads which oil is making in power production. We find that various industries in this country have not only had oil machinery installed for the purpose of using oil as against coal for power production. but that process is constantly going on. I think that the time has arrived when some definite and coordinated effort must be made to see whether we can, in some way or other, induce people to use coal for the purpose of power production, or else we must produce oil from the oil reservoirs which we have in this country, and then give those people the supply which they require.
May I refer to the statement which was made by Sir John Cadman in a speech which he delivered in February of last year? This is an indication of what is taking place year after year. Sir John Cadman, representing a very large oil company, referred to the fact that if the railway companies in this country put into operation an oil-electric engine they could with 2,000,000 tons of oil do that which requires 13,000,000 tons of coal at the present time. If that should happen, it would mean that no fewer than 40,000 miners, who are now employed in the production of coal for the use of the railways, would be thrown out of employment—displaced by oil. I have referred to the fact that we have no natural oil resources; the same thing can be said of the British Empire. Of the known oil resources of the world, only 2 per cent. are contained in the Empire. All that we can do, with regard to the production of oil in this country, is to produce between 25,000,000 and 30,000,000 gallons of benzol from high temperature coke ovens or gas works, or 240,000,000 to 250,000,000 gallons of cresote oils.
In view of the changes which have taken place, the British Navy is almost dependent for its fuel upon the importation of foreign supplies. The whole of the Air Service and the mechanised Army are also dependent upon the importation of motor spirit, which is their very life blood. The major portion of the mercantile marine, as I have pointed out, and road transport, are also dependent upon imported fuel. It is interesting to note the increase which has taken place in the importation of fuel in this country. In 1910, the amount of fuel spirit imported into this country was something like 55,000,000 gallons. In 1930, the importation had gone up to nearly 1,000,000,000 gallons, and, taking the first six months of this year, we find that, if the present rate of import of motor spirit is continued during the second six months of this year, the import into this country will amount to over 1,000,000,000 gallons. I could go on dealing with the question of fuel oil and the other oils upon which this nation is so dependent.
Much has been said regarding the extraction of oil from coal, and there have been a number of processes doing this work for some time in this country. I am pleased to note, from the reply given by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, that the Admiralty is gradually increasing the amount of oil produced from coal for naval purposes. In 1929 we did just make a start in this matter and produced or sampled 20 tons of oil from coal, and 1 think my hon. Friend will agree with me that in almost every way the fuel oil produced from coal gave results almost equal to naturally produced oil. The difficulty is not the quality of oil produced from coal, but the quantity, and there is no reason why, instead of the Navy being dependent, as it is almost entirely upon oil imported into this country, we should not produce from coal, oil quite suitable and satisfactory for the purpose. The same could be said with regard to the Air Force. I was very pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Air, in reply to a question recently, said:
As a full-scale experiment, one Home Defence Squadron is flying solely on petrol extracted from British coal."—[Official report, 19th July, 1933; col. 1801, Vol. 280.]
Had the right hon. Member been present, very probably his reply to the ques-
tion whether that petrol is satisfactory or not, would be similar to the reply which has been given by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. Seeing that oil can be produced from coal to do the work which is now being done by imported oil, one naturally asks why this oil extraction is not exploited, and let me say that all my hon. Friends on this side of the Roust were naturally interested in the announcement made by the Prime Minister when dealing with this matter on Monday last week. We have for long advocated the erection of plant for the purpose of large-scale experiments, though we disagree with the method which is being adopted regarding these experiments. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines will understand me when I say that we think it is wrong, and that the setting up of what, after all, is likely to be a new industry, ought not to be left in the hands of one private company, however powerful that company might be. Taking not only the condition of the coalfields into consideration, and the suffering of the miners, but, from the point of view of national interest, we think it is the work of the nation to face up to the changes which are taking place, and that the nation itself should make itself responsible for the experiments and exploiting of this process.
It is desirable, I think, that the proposals of the Government should be clearly understood. So far as I understand them, in the first place they involve a preference of at least 4d. per gallon for motor spirit manufactured from home-produced coal, shale, peat, or from the derivatives of those fuels. This preference may extend over a period of nine years from 1935, but if the present duty of 8d. per gallon is reduced to 4d., then, of course, it will spread over a very much shorter period—some four and a-half years. In other words, the home manufacture of petrol is to be guaranteed for a period of not less than four and a-half years and not more than nine years—a preference in the aggregate of no less than 3s. a gallon, that is, if 30,000,000 gallons of petrol per annum are produced, a sum of something like £4,500,000 will be lost to the Treasury in duty upon this oil as a result of this proposal. It is estimated that 4d. a gallon on petrol is equivalent to £4 16s. a ton, or, roughly, seven times the current pit-head price of
coal produced at the present time in the United Kingdom.
It will be seen, in the light of these facts, that the Government scheme is a very costly one. A petrol output of 100,000 tons per annum, which, after all, is negligible from the point of view of the amount of petrol which will be used in this country, and the amount of coal which we have been given to understand will be used in this process, represents just 0.016 per cent. of the present total production of coal in this country. The experiment may be justified if it is for the benefit of the coal trade and the nation as a, whole, but we are of opinion that the Government themselves, as I have already pointed out, should have shouldered the responsibility. May I say that those of us who come from the mining districts are just a little apprehensive as to what might take place in the transfer price of coal from the pit to any process which might be developed? Some of my hon. Friends may say," Ah, but there is a minimum price in operation, and the coal cannot be sold below the minimum price. "We have had same experience of what has happened with regard to gas, electrical and other industrial undertakings before Part I of the 1930 Act came into operation.
I would ask the Secretary for Mines, in his reply, to deal with a few questions in which we are interested. Might I ask the hon. Member whether there has been any agreement entered into between the Government arid Imperial Chemical Industries or the owners of any other process for the extraction of oil from coal? Have any of the owners of the other processes been consulted with regard to these terms, or have the negotiations simply been carried on with the representatives of Imperial Chemical Industries? Then might I ask the hon. Member whether the persons who have for years been working upon the question of low temperature carbonisation have been consulted as to whether they would be prepared to produce, say, a fuel oil or a heavy oil under processes of that kind, or is the effort to be limited to the production of petrol under the auspices of Imperial Chemical Industries? May I ask whether any effective arrangement is being arrived at with regard to the price of petrol? We must remember that last year and this year the
price of petrol is only 50 per cent. of what it was in 1929, and, if I understand rightly, it is the desire of the Government that the price of all raw materials should be restored to what it was in 1929, and the price of petrol in 1929 at the Thames mouth was 6d. per gallon, whereas at the present time it is something like 3d. per gallon. I would like the hon. Member to reply to that question.
There is another question. Has any provision been made, or any discussion taken place during the negotiations with regard to the site of the proposed works Is the site to be left entirely to Imperial Chemical Industries, or are the Government insisting that the site for the proposed works should be placed in the coal-fields? Ts the Secretary for Mines, or are those negotiating, considering the question, in the event of the industry being established, of it being situated in such a position on the coalfield that it could be linked up with other processes which might be developed such as hydrogenation? Then we might ask whether the Government themselves—and perhaps my hon. Friend the Civil Lord could answer that question later on—are giving any definite promise to take from Imperial Chemical Industries a supply of petrol for the Services, or will the petrol which will be produced as a result of these experiments be distributed in the ordinary way by the petrol, distributors throughout the country? It is a question to which I would like the hon. Member to reply. Although the Financial Secretary to the Treasury hedged round it yesterday, could the hon. Gentleman tell us what is going to be the actual cost to the Treasury of this process, and is it to be confined to petrol hydrogenated from coal? Because we must remember that the hydrogenation of petrol can be as successfully carried out when petrol is hydrogenated from heavy oil as it can be from coal.
As the Secretary for Mines must know, the Anglo-American Oil Company at the present time in America, where they have an abundance of oil, have formed very large hydrogenating plant, hydrogenating nothing but heavy oil, and converting it into petrol. Is there anything in the agreement which will indicate that the preference will be given only to oil produced from coal by that process or by the process of low temperature carbonisation? We certainly object, as I have
already pointed out, to Imperial Chemical Industries being given a monopoly in this matter. While I do not desire to take from the company any credit for the work which they have done in the research and development of the Bergius process, upon which, I understand, they have spent a considerable sum of money, in our opinion it is a great pity that the nation, through the Fuel Research Board, did riot continue the work which it did in 1925, without allowing this process to pass out of the hands of the nation into the hands of this private company, which at the present time, I understand, not only possesses the rights for this country but the British Empire rights as well. I also regret that the colliery owners, through the British Colliery Owners' Research Association, are not now conducting the experiments which were financed by them at Birmingham University. As I have pointed out, Imperial Chemical Industries have not only a monopoly, but since 1928 they have had all the rights, and no one company, however powerful it may be, should have the monopoly of what in our opinion is going to be a new industry, and may well be, if properly managed and controlled, a very important industry.
It is true that Imperial Chemical Industries have from time to time published details of the work which has been carried out by their research engineers and chemists at Billingham, and we know that on several occasions mining and other engineers have visited those works. At the same time, I feel sure that the Secretary for Mines will remember that this is not the only process for the production of oil from coal, but that a large amount of work has been carried out by those who have taken a keen interest in low-temperature carbonisation. In that process, unlike the hydrogenation process, the main product is coke, and the difficulty is in regard to the disposal of that fuel. The main product of hydrogenation is petrol. I would like, however, to call the attention of the Secretary for Mines to the changes which are taking place in regard to heavy lorries and passenger vehicles in this country. There is scarcely an omnibus company, or a municipality which is running omnibuses, that has not during the last two years tried out the Diesel engine, and we find that the Diesel
engine is rapidly becoming popular. The Diesel engine, instead of using petrol, uses heavy oil, and, whatever may be said regarding the advantages of the Bergius process for hydrogenating coal for the production of petrol, we know that it is not nearly so suitable for the production of the heavy oils from which Diesel oil can be produced.
I am not going into the economics of the one process as compared with the other, but we are very much concerned regarding the present development by the Government. As I have already said, we are pleased that a large-scale experiment on these lines is being carried out, but we feel that we ought not to allow the opportunity to pass without registering our protest that this matter should be left in the hands of private enterprise. One has only to look back at the development which has taken place in the power-producing industries of this country to see that we cannot deal with 1920 problems by 1919 methods. Take the question of the coal industry, the gas industry, and the electrical industry. In this country the gas industry was introduced very largely for the purpose of providing an artificial illuminant. No one ever anticipated that the gas industry would grow to its present size, and, while gas is entirely dependent upon coal as its raw material, as soon as coal is converted into gas the gas at once competes with coal. The same can be said with regard to electricity. It was introduced, in the first instance, for the purpose of providing an improved artificial illuminant. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) will not agree with me when I say" improved artificial illuminant," but there it is, and to-day we find that the three great power-producing industries in this country are the coal industry, the gas industry and the electrical industry.
It is true to say that the gas industry and the electrical industry were developed under a system of semi-public control, and it is also true to say that these three industries, until quite recently, could be regarded, as being, owing to their organisation, entirely inefficient for dealing with the demands made upon them. That has been pointed out on numerous occasions with regard to the coal industry, and I do not want to go into that question here: while the Con-
servative Government itself, in 1925, had to introduce a scheme for the purpose of organising the electrical industry in this country so that the nation should have full advantage from it. We find that the gas industry is almost in the same condition. I am not suggesting that all the gas plants in this country are not efficient; it would be wrong to say so; but there is a very strong desire throughout the country that the gas industry should be organised on the kind of grid system on which the electrical industry is organised at the present time.

Mr. CLARRY: Purely by private enterprise, without interference from the State.

Mr. HALL: That may be the hon. Member's point of view; it is not our point of view, and it is not what took place in the case of the electrical industry. I am sure that my hon. Friend who was in the House in 1925, will remember what took place in connection with the electrical industry. Our complaint is that, as long as these industries develop separately, and quite apart from any regard one for the other, we are not going to have an efficient power-producing industry in this country. Why cannot a National Government, in the year 1933, plan power production in this country I Coal, as I have already pointed out, is the basis of the electrical industry and of the gas industry; only a very small percentage of electricity is generated in this country by water power; and in the case of both electricity and gas, as soon as the Goal is changed in form, the gas or electricity produced from it at once enters into competition with coal for the purpose of power production.
The proposals announced by the Prime Minister last week represent the beginning of a new industry, the dimensions of which we cannot foresee here this afternoon, and, in our view, instead of the hon. Gentleman being Secretary for Mines, he really aught to be Minister for Power and Fuel in this country, coordinating all these power-producing industries under one head and under the control of a Minister responsible to this House. Last week we were dealing with a Road Transport Bill. We have a Minister of Transport dealing with the question of rail traffic, road traffic, and coast wise shipping. Is it not as important that we should have a Minister of Power and Fuel, bringing all these light and power
proposals under his Department? The need for such a plan is obvious. We say that it -should include the coal mines, the gas industry, and the electrical industry, together with the new carbonisation and hydrogenation industries. These should be set up in the coalfields, which have suffered almost entirely as a result of the changes which have taken place, and all of which are now depressed. These industries should be set up where the coal can be converted into the various kinds of power at the pithead.
There is no difficulty to-day in the conveying of power from the coalfields to other industrial centres in the country. There is no industrial country in the world where the coalfields are so conveniently situated as they are in this country. Industrial South Wales has its coalfields; the industrial Midlands have their coalfields; industrial Durham and Lancashire have their coalfields; industrial Scotland has its coalfield; within 50 miles of London there is a great coalfield in Kent, and Somerset and Bristol have their coalfields. When one sees, as I have seen, high tension electric mains conveying electricity some 300 or 400 miles from the Niagara Falls down to Southern Ontario and the Ontario Peninsula, one can see how this nation could be linked up in one power-producing scheme of that kind, in which coal, gas, electricity and oil would all play their part. If that were done, it would bring a new hope and a new prosperity into those districts such as is desperately needed at the present time, for, granting that it would not put all the miners back to work, it would, if developed with vision and enterprise, provide a number with alternative work much more congenial and less dangerous than underground work; it would make this nation self-supporting in all that is necessary for power production; it would save the tens of millions of pounds which are now spent on the importation of oil into this country, and it would do much to restore the nation to prosperity.

4.19 p.m.

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: This Debate was arranged for the purpose of discussing an announcement made by the Prime Minister on Monday of last week, in answer to a question put by myself, and I am extremely gratified to have this opportunity of congratulating the Government on the decision which they have
taken. I should also like to congratulate Imperial Chemical Industries. I think we owe them a debt of gratitude for the untiring research work which they have conducted on the hydrogenation of coal during the last six years—research work which has satisfied that company at least that it is now in a position to go forward and build a plant to produce petrol from coal on a commercial basis. It was, I think, suggested by the hon. Member for. Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) that there is some sort of unholy alliance between the Government and Imperial Chemical Industries, and that the Government have in fact given a special monopolistic privilege to Imperial Chemical Industries in this matter. Later on in his remarks, however, the hon. Member pointed out, quite rightly, that hydrogenation is not the only way of producing petrol from coal, but that there are other processes, and it is only fair to say that the special guarantee which the Government have given to Imperial Chemical Industries will also be given to any other company endeavouring to produce petrol from coal, no matter what process they use.
In point of fact, so far as I know, petrol produced in this country has always been exempt from excise duty. The Scottish shale oil industry would probably not have been in existence to-day had it not been for the Petrol Duty in the past, and it is a fact that, as a result of the last increase in the Petrol Duty, Scottish Oils were able to re-employ 800 shale miners who, a year previously, had lost their employment as a result of the low world price of petrol at that time. It is stated that this process of hydrogenation is obsolete and does not pay. I was sent a memorandum this morning which says:
Direct hydrogenation of coal does not pay. If it did pay, there would be no need for the chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries to write to the" Times" suggesting that the process should be financed by the British Government.

An HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

Sir A. BAILLIE: I am not able to give a satisfactory reply to the hon. Member, because the memorandum is not signed, but accompanying it was a cutting of 8th April giving a letter signed by Commander Bernard Akworth. Further on it said:
If any Government was so foolish as to accept the advice of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and em-
bark on a scheme for the hydrogenation of coal, it is almost certain that by the time the scheme was under way the consumer would be using a cheaper fuel than could possibly be supplied from the hydrogenation plant.
In the course of the last 12 months, even with a comparatively small laboratory plant, Imperial Chemicals have been able to reduce their operation costs by 50 per cent. It is not difficult to imagine that, when larger plant is set up on a commercial basis, it will be possible to make further economies with overheads and it will also be possible to make economies in the actual construction of the plant itself. In fact, I do not consider that it would be without the bounds of possibility, say in 10 years, that the price of petrol produced from coal would be at least as cheap as the petrol which we now have to import.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The point has been made that hydrogenation is possible from heavy oils, and the product would have the same benefit as petrol extracted by hydrogenation. It is, therefore, untrue that this would directly benefit the coal trade.

Sir A. BAILLIE: I do not quite follow the relevancy of the hon. Member's interruption.

Mr. BEVAN: The point is that this is going to be of immense benefit to the coal industry and that hydrogenation from coal will develop. But hydrogenation from imported heavy oils will receive the benefit as well.

Sir A. BAILLIE: In that case, as far as I have succeeded in following the interruption, which is one of general criticism of the entire purport of my speech, if it is a question of hydrogenation from imported heavy oils, those oils will bear a revenue duty. In regard to the cost of this scheme, the Prime Minister stated that the cost to the Treasury would be inconsiderable. As far as I can see, the only cost that the Treasury may have to bear is one of loss of revenue, and that loss of revenue could only take place as and when the home industry could produce a sufficient quantity of coal to reduce the demand for the petrol which we now import. It is estimated that the erection of the plant will employ 7,000 men directly and another 7,000 indirectly and that it will
give employment to 1,000 miners. Taking the cost of an unemployed man at a week, I have worked out that in the case of one year alone the saving to the Unemployment Insurance Fund would be no less than £780,000, which would be sufficient to offset any temporary loss which the Exchequer might have to incur as the result of having guaranteed this scheme.
I have seen other criticisms of the proposal which come from Free Traders who cannot see why the consumer should be asked to pay more for his petrol than he would have to pay if there was no duty on the imported fuel. It is the same line of argument which always insists that you must buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. But what the Free Trader will not face up to is that the choice of our export market, let alone the dearest market, is no longer our own. In the last century, in my opinion, the industrial pre-eminence of this country was based to a large extent on coal. Coal was our basic asset. It was the foundation of our mercantile marine. Since the War our export markets have, for a variety of reasons, dwindled very considerably. Furthermore, the demand for British coal has dwindled on account of the increasing use of oil which, as the hon. Member for Aberdare pointed out, we are now obliged to import in increasing and alarming quantities. In a completely Free Trade world that might have been a matter of no particular importance. We might have been able to pay for these imports of foreign oils by increased exports of manufactured goods, but the Board of Trade figures show that in the world in which we are living to-day, in a world of economic nationalism and self-sufficiency, we have a very hard time of it to export enough to pay for what we have to import, and every gallon of fuel oil or petrol imported has to be paid for by some manufactured goods. Since the War the quantities of petrol which we have had to import have, therefore, created an increasing burden on the industrial community. I think, therefore, that there is everything to be said for the encouragement which the Government is giving to the production of petrol from coal, and I hope that encouragement will continue until such time as we are able to produce sufficient oil to meet the requirements of the day.
Those are merely a few observations on the economic side of the proposal. There is another side to it on which I should like to lay some emphasis, and that is the security of national defence. We are obliged to import vast quantities of fuel oil for our Navy, our Air Force, and the mechanised part of our Army, and who knows but that, when another great war comes along, we might not find ourselves shut off from foreign sources of supply, and then what good would be our Army to us and what value in defence would be our Air Force, or even our Navy? I feel that the extra price which may have to be paid by the consumer for petrol in the years to come is insignificant compared with the defence of the Realm and the defence of the Empire. I should like to congratulate the Government on the fillip which it has given to the industry, which is sufficient to induce Imperial Chemicals to erect this plant, and I should Ike to congratulate them, further, on being able to do this without incurring any financial responsibility. This experiment can be tried out without in any way endangering the finances of the State. As to quantity, of course at present it is very small. It may seem insignificant. So far as employment in the mining industry is concerned it is merely a 1,000 men. I understand that Imperial Chemicals have already inspected 20 other sites up and down the country, and it is quite clear that they will find them somewhere in the area of the coalfields. With that knowledge in mind, I feel that, while this may be just the thin end of the wedge, nevertheless it is a very good wedge, and I look forward to the time when, as the result of the encouragement given by the Government, we shall be able to be entirely self-sufficient as regards petrol.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in his wide and very interesting review of the condition of the coal industry, leading up to the very thoughtful and instructive picture which he drew of the possibility of co-ordinating our coal resources with our other sources of power, a suggestion which was foreshadowed by the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry. Nor do I wish to follow him in the field in which he speaks with particular knowledge and experience, but
I could not but be struck with the fact that, after pointing out that there are only two-thirds of the men now enmployed in the coalfield who were so employed in 1924, he added that, although the coal industry is at that low ebb to-day, it is by no means stabilised at that position and that developments which are by no means impossible might reduce its condition to one much more deplorable than it is at present. I admire the way in which he, as the representative of a mining constituency, did not blink the fact that this new process is a costly one and that there are difficulties in the way.
There are, I think, many aspects of this new proposal for the hydrogenation of coal which must appeal to all parties in the House. The mere fact that it is advocated as a means of bringing some help to a sorely pressed industry should be sufficient to secure it sympathetic consideration. We who have long advocated a policy of national development and investment are, naturally, favourably predisposed to consider it, and we are not alone in that view. Apart from the House, there is a great and growing volume of opinion in the country that greater efforts should be made at this time to give an impetus to trade, which seems to be slowly recovering, by the development of idle resources. The Government, however, have adopted a very rigid attitude on that particular policy of development. I might go further and say that it is almost 8, frigid attitude, and in some quarters I see that they are being described as if their motto is "Faith without works" or, at all events, faith without public works. Be that as it may, I am sure that the fact that the Government, having now considered, as we know they must have considered, many proposals of one sort or another, have now come to the House with a proposal which they do not wish to turn down, must naturally influence the House to give it the careful consideration it certainly deserves.
One of the first considerations is that it has a definite and an unfortunate resemblance to other schemes of national planning upon which we have already embarked. I think that all the national planning which we have so far entered upon in this country has had the result of adding to the supply of some product which is already in excessive
supply and is not wanted. I am speaking in general terms. I think that if an impartial arbitrator or authority had been asked to consider our national planning and development he would have said, "You had better get rid of some of the national planning you have already done." I do not mention this to condemn out of hand any proposal which comes here on such grounds as this, but in order to point out that it has an unfortunate resemblance, for example, to the beet-sugar industry. I will not discuss this matter further, except to say that if the same impartial observer had been advising us he would have said: "The whole world is bursting with sugar. Some of your Colonies are producing it. They are hard hit, and, at all events, the one thing you must leave out of your national planning is sugar." I think that arguments of the same kind might be advanced in regard to the national planning of the wheat industry. We have to look at the present proposal with some regard to costs and in relation to what has gone before, which fact, I think, is not adequately realised certainly in the country, and I am inclined to doubt whether it is realised by the House. I am not sure that it was realised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie), who said that the cost of the proposal would be comparatively small. I think that he quoted figures and said that the total cost to the Treasury might be £750,000 a year.

Sir A. BAILLIE: I said that it would cost the Treasury a negligible amount. and I made no reference to what it was likely to cost the company which constructed the plant.

Mr. WHITE: We are a little at cross-purposes. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the cost to the Treasury will be a negligible amount, or very small.

Mr. CLARRY: Loss of revenue.

Mr. WHITE: It is very important that it should be understood both in this House and in the country that a loss of revenue which is arrived at by remission of tax is just as much a loss to the taxpayer and the Revenue as if it had been paid out in a direct subsidy.

Sir A. BAILLIE: I recognise the loss to the Treasury, but I said that it would
be to a large extent counter-balanced by the saving in Unemployment Insurance benefit.

Mr. WHITE: I intended in my next sentence or two to refer to that matter. This brings me to another point with regard to the announcement which was made by the Prime Minister last week when the project was first mooted in the House. He gave certain figures with regard to employment, and hon. Members are entitled to ask for a little more information with regard to them. The whole thing is somewhat nebulous. The Prime Minister mentioned certain figures of employment, and now the hon. Gentleman has based himself on the Prime Minister and says that the savings to the Unemployment Insurance Fund will be considerable. Undoubtedly there will be some saving to the fund, but I would ask my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines whether, in the figures officially given to the House, allowance was also made in respect of men who will lose their employment and who up to the present time have been engaged in transporting the oil into this country and in the tankers and so forth, which will be put out of operation. That is a point which must not be lost sight of. I feel profoundly that the matter has not been sufficiently thought out. If it has, and the details are available, those details have not been produced to this House in order that Members may decide whether they can whole-heartedly support this particular proposition.
I should like to address another question to the Secretary for Mines on the same point. It has been suggested, on the basis of the plant unit which is contemplated with the help of Imperial Chemical Industries, that work will be provided for 1,000 miners. Incidentally, the work which will be provided for 1,000 miners would, on the basis of the production of petrol and oil by that particular unit of plant, cost the Treasury the sum of £1,000,000 a year, and would work out—I have seen various estimates—to a sum of between £800 and £1,000 per miner per annum. That is a figure which everybody must take into account when we are invited to consider this project, however anxious we may be that it should go forward. It has been stated to me and to others that the
actual number of miners to be employed is far less than the 1,000 which the Prime Minister suggested. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am not asserting it myself, but it is a point of some substance. The statement has been made that the number of miners to be employed in order to produce the coal for this plant will be very much below 1,000. The actual material used in the hydrogenation process is small coal and dust and hydrogenation can be started and carried on without the employment of a single extra miner. I neither confirm that of my own knowledge nor am I in a position to deny it. I should like hon. Members who can speak with a wider and more practical acquaintance with the subject to clear up that point which is likely materially to affect the judgment of many Members in coming to a decision upon this very important matter.
With regard to the question of the magnitude and cost of those processes. If they were pursued to their natural conclusion and met with complete success; if by the various processes of low carbonisation and hydrogenation all the oil fuel required by this country were produced domestically, the loss to the Treasury would amount to £35,000,000. That is a point of very great consideration, especially coupled with the fact that the coal, on the basis of the Prime Minister's statement, would only amount to from 2½ to 3 weeks' production on the basis of the figures of production for 1931. Again, we must relate that fact to the question of the cost which the nation as a whole will have to bear. Those who are embarking upon this important experiment will have to compete with the oil which is bubbling up from natural sources and which can be produced and brought to this country at a cost of about 3d. per gallon, as against a cost of production, on such information as is available to me, of the oil produced by the hydrogenation or any other process of something like 8d. or 9d. a gallon. It must, therefore, be clear to everybody that it is not an economic process or even a business process on the basis of the present values of petrol. That is a very important fact which should be borne in mind and pondered over.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration
the cost of storing oil at Singapore and at other places?

Mr. WHITE: No. I am not dealing with the matter in such detail as that: I am trying to present to the House a broad case of the difficulties and costs which the House have to consider. Furthermore, the cost of storing, I imagine, will be very much the same whether the oil is produced in this country or whether it is brought from Persia or from anywhere else. I wish to say a few words about the actual carrying out of the work. The hon. Member for Linlithgow congratulated the Imperial Chemical Industries upon the enterprise which they have shown in coming forward with this proposal. The Imperial Chemical Industries is a company well known as a leader of scientific work in this country. I do not know of any other company in this country which has devoted more time and money to the prosecution of research. They have taken risks, and they are prepared to take business risks. But clearly they now come to a risk which they do not regard as a business risk, because they are not prepared to set up a plant without a guarantee of some kind. That raises a further issue of the risk which is involved.
The hon. Member behind me referred to the fact that the hydrogenation process had started in the laboratory and had been transferred to the trial unit stage. Everybody knows that in transferring from the laboratory stage to the first commercial unit or the pilot plant there is a great deal of difficulty and loss. If it works out satisfactorily, naturally the results will show an improvement upon the laboratory scale. That is all to the good. When you take into consideration the risks which the Imperial Chemical Industries are called upon to run, it has to be borne in mind that they have to face risks in carrying on and in transferring from a small pilot plant to a process on a vast commercial scale. The Imperial Chemical Industries cannot tell us, nor can anyone else, what the result will be when these comparatively small reactions are produced on a vast scale. Carried on that basis, the results might be far better than expected. But the last reaction might be much more costly and might not work out. The whole thing might be a substantial failure, and the Imperial
Chemical Industries would therefore be mulcted in very heavy loss for the plant which they had put up, and which, as far as I know, might not be utilisable for anything else.
There are one or two other things I wish to point out in connection with the risk. It is not only the risk of process which is involved but the development of other processes. We know that there are very optimistic views held by Members in this House who speak with authority that compressed gas or compressed hydrogen may very likely supersede petrol for many purposes for which it is now employed. Imperial Chemical Industries having embarked upon this great expenditure may not find it a profitable venture by any means. I must comment on the great uncertainty in regard to the whole of this proposition. The financial result is clearly uncertain. The result to the taxpayers is uncertain and maybe as costly as the sugar subsidy has proved to be. There is also uncertainty in regard to the operation of carrying out the process. It can only be described from the point of view of the taxpayers as a very hazardous speculation, and I would say myself—from the letters I have received from some of the shareholders in Imperial Chemical Industries they take a similar view—that it is a very hazardous speculation from the point of view of the shareholders in Imperial Chemical Industries. The whole thing is so uncertain and difficult that we ought to be very careful before we embark upon it large sums of public money, which may be irrecoverable.
The conclusion to which I have been led by a careful consideration of such facts as were available to me in the somewhat nebulous presentation of the case, and from such other sources, not very wide, and from such experience as I have in these matters, which I must confess is not very recent, is that the House should ponder this matter very carefully. From the point of view of the taxpayer it is clearly hazardous, and it may well be a costly experiment. From the point of view of those undertaking the work it is also very hazardous. It is clearly the duty of Parliament to consider the matter very carefully in all its aspects. I do not feel that the House has had presented to it sufficient evidence upon
which to form a reliable judgment and therefore I think that it should receive further consideration, which should take the form suggested in the Resolution on the Order Paper that the matter should be committed to a Select Committee of the House.

5.2 p.m.

Major OWEN: We have listened with a great deal of interest and a great deal of misgiving to the very exhaustive address from the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). I do not think there can be any hon. Member who would not welcome any scheme that might bring some measure of hope to the coal industry. If I have a criticism to make of the proposal it must not he taken to mean that I am in any way opposed to schemes for the furtherance and betterment of the lot of the coalminers of this country and of the coalmining industry but there are certain reasons and considerations with reference to the proposal which was announced by the Prime Minister last month which require very careful consideration. Those who advocate the establishment of a hydrogenation industry in this country do so mainly for three reasons, (1) to give employment to workmen, (2) that it will help to restore the trade balance of prosperity and (3) that it will give security in time of war.
Let us examine those three reasons one by one. The first reason is, that it would give employment to workmen. On that point I should like to call the attention of the House to the official statement that was made by the chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries on are 18th of this month, after the announcement was made by the Prime Minister in this House. This is what Sir Harry McGowan said on that occasion:
For six years Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, have conducted research on the hydrogenation of coal, tar and other materials. In view of the undertaking given in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, the directors of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, have now authorised a scheme for the erection of a large commercial plant, which is to be located at the company's works at Billingham-on-Tees, County Durham, where special facilities are available. An initial output of 100,000 tons a year of first grade petrol is aimed at by processing 400 tons of coal a day, and using altogether about 1,000 tons a day of coal.
The point to which I would draw special attention is contained in the following paragraph:
The operation of the plant will give permanent direct employment to 2,500 miners and other workmen, as well as much indirect employment. The construction of the plant itself, estimated to take about years, will call for much activity in the iron and steel and heavy industries. Seven thousand men will find direct employment for those 1½ years, and it is expected that there will be indirect employment for a further 5,000 men.
That is the official statement. It is true that for a period of 1½ years employment will be found directly for 7,500 men and indirectly for another 5,000. That employment will be found directly by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, who are prepared to spend a sum of £2,500,000 on the erection of this plant at Bellingham. Actually the number to be permanently employed is about 2,500, 1,000 of whom will be miners and the others will be employed on the plant itself in the production of the oil. The point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead East (Mr. White) has been put to me by several engineers who know both the coal and the oil industries. I believe it to be a fact that in most of the coalmines of this country the miner is only paid for the large coal which he produces. It is the custom in some coalmines for the miners to put their coal into a. sort of basket arrangement, to ensure that only the large coal shall be brought to the surface. The small coal which the miner already produces remains at the bottom of the pit. It is called duff, and names of that sort. Every pit in this country is capable of hauling to the surface a far greater amount of coal than is actually brought to the surface by the machinery every day.

Mr. SLATER indicated dissent.

Major OWEN: The hon. Member shakes his head. I know that it is so. I can give the hon. Member facts in regard to the matter. Practically every coal mine is in that position; it is a general statement. Practically every coalmine that produces coal on any scale can haul to the surface a far greater amount of coal than it does at the present time. Therefore, it will be merely a matter of putting in the container which is brought to the surface the small coal which is there already, which will be in the main used in this particular
process. There is considerable variation in the quality of the coal. It may be that the oil content of some coal in. certain areas is far better suited for this process than coal in other districts. In those particular areas I am not prepared to say that there will not be a, certain small increase in the number of miners employed.
The second point usually made is that this process will help to restore the trade balance of prosperity. May I draw the attention of the House to a statement that was made by Lord Bearsted, chairman of the Shell Trading Company, Limited, at the annual meeting of that company on the 20th June. Speaking of the oil industry he said:
I doubt whether any prime commodity is, or ever has been, so heavily mulcted. On the trade of our group for 1932, the direct taxation, exclusive of Income Tax on profits, was about £50,000,000. Against this the shareholders received in dividends just under £6,000,000, on most of which they have to pay Income Tax.
He went on to say:
There seems to be great confusion in the public mind on this question of so-called foreign oil, and I will take this opportunity of stating the facts which should be, but apparently are not, well known. In the first place, let us take petrol. The retail price to-day is ls. 5d. per gallon. Of the ls. 5d. 8d. is tax, which is obviously all spent in this country and has no effect on the trade balance. Of the remaining 9d. only 21d. represents c.i.f. cost, and the balance of 6¼d. covers landing and storage charges and losses, inland freight, delivery charges and losses, and selling costs. Thus, 84 per cent-of the total retail selling price represents. tax and what I may call selling costs, every-penny of which is spent in this country.
Further to that statement, I may add—the figures are well known—that the company pays 2½d. a gallon on inland distribution, and 2d. to the dealer who sells, the petrol to the consumer. Therefore, there is very little margin left for profit in that way. The truth of the matter is that a very large proportion of the money invested in the oil producing companies is British money. Although the British Empire itself does not produce much oil, many of these oil companies are British, British owned, British run. The refineries are British, they are run by British capital and by British employés. The oil is brought to this country in British tankers, and the profits, whenever they are made, are distributed in this country. Therefore the talk about oil being a foreign product is not accurate. The oil
producing companies which have their head offices in this country spend practically 75 per cent. of the cost of production in this country in the purchase of machinery and other articles necessary for carrying on in the foreign countries. It is idle to say that this is a question of a foreign product, when it is produced actually by British labour, by British capital, is brought to this country by British tankers and is distributed in this country by British firms. That is the position in regard to oil.
The third point made is that in case of war it is extremely essential that we should have our supply of oil safeguarded. What does this process mean? It involves the putting up of great plant and buildings at certain specified places near colliery areas. If this country should ever go to war, which Gad forbid, these large plants would immediately be the centres of attack, and however well they were protected by the military they would still be open to attack from the air. Once they were destroyed in any vital part where is this country going to get its oil supplies? Meanwhile the organisation which has hitherto brought oil from abroad has gone; and we should be left without anything at all. There is another inherent weakness in the argument. The great question during the last war was not so much the supply of oil as the supply of food, and if our navy cannot guarantee a supply of oil neither can it guarantee our supply of food.
What about the cost? I have here a copy of the" Petroleum Times" for 7th November, 1931, in which there is a report of an address given by Mr. Gordon of Imperial Chemical Industries to the Oil Industries Club at the Great Western Hotel on the 3rd November, 1931. He was giving that company a description of a process of hydrogenation and of the work which had been done by Imperial Chemical Industries as well, who had put up great works at Billingham at a cost of £7,500,000 for the manufacture of nitrates. That manufacture is not really required. In the meantime—and credit is due to Imperial Chemical Industries—they devoted a great deal of money and time to experimenting on a process of hydrogenation, and about a years ago set up a plant capable of dealing with
15 tons of coal per day. Mr. Gordon was in charge of all this work, and this is what he told the Oil Industries Club:"
 To try out that process"—
That is the Bergius process—
they had built at Billingham a plant treating 15 tons per day of coal, which had now been operating for nearly two years.
This is what Mr. Gordon said in regard to costs to which I want hon. Members to pay particular attention:
Their estimates for the cost of production of petrol including obsolescence, but excluding retailers' profit and return on capital, was 7d. per gallon, and, of course, petrol produced at that price could be retailed at to-day's selling price with a reasonable margin of profit. That figure referred, of course, to a very much larger plant than they had at Billingham. The size they had selected for economic production was a unit producing 200,000 tons per year of petrol, which was 8 per cent. of the present consumption. As time went on, no doubt it would be found possible to reduce the cost of production of oil from coal, but there did not seem to be any hope of obtaining, for example, the present day's price of imported petrol of 2½d. per gallon, because, since the coal which was required for the process, in all 3½ tons per ton of petrol, would alone cost 2d. per gallon.
That is only one of the articles required in the process, and it would cost 2d. per gallon as against 2¾d. c.i.f., the price of petrol produced from natural petroleum. Mr. Gordon went on to say:
But there was little doubt that the price of imported petrol would rise and although they could not see when the day would arrive when they would be able to produce petrol from coal in open competition with natural petroleum such a day was bound to come.
He had sufficient confidence that it would come some day, but when he did not know. I read very carefully the address delivered by Mr. Gordon to the World Petroleum Conference. He did not refer in that address to the price of production, but he say here, and it is an important point, that 7d. per gallon is the cost of production at the works and that that price provides for the obsolescence of machinery, but does not provide for the cost of retailing oil or for a return on capital. That, in itself, is a proof that oil produced in this way at the present moment, I am not saying anything about the future, cannot compete with petrol from natural sources; and Mr. Gordon, who is in charge of this plant and who has done all the work for the last 31 years, cannot himself promise when it will be
possible to produce petrol from coal in competition with petrol from natural sources.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Was it in that speech that Mr. Gordon predicted that the world's natural supply of petroleum would run out in about 30 years, and that the world would then have to rely on oil from coal?

Major OWEN: I cannot say definitely that it was in that speech. The report I read does not mention it, but I have seen statements to that, effect. The extraordinary thing to me is that the Government of this country is the chief shareholder in a great oil producing company, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which produces oil at a lower cost than any other oil company in the world. It can produce almost any amount; its production is only limited by the amount of petrol it can sell. What does the present Government do? They throw it on one side; they are prepared to drop £1,000,000 per annum in import duties in order to bolster up what I consider is an experiment, which has been continued by Imperial Chemical Industries. I disagree with my hon. Friend; I do not think that this is a matter for the nation. It has been started by private enterprise and is more likely to succeed under private enterprise. There has been undoubtedly a great development in hydrogenation processes within the last eight or nine years and it has been proved in the case of petroleum to be a very valuable process. A low grade oil can be made into a good grade oil by the infusion of hydrogen, but I maintain that as far as the production of oil from coal is concerned hydrogenation is still in an experimental stage.
The question the House has to decide is whether it is prepared to sacrifice the ratepayers' money in order to give this support for a period of four and a-half years at, 8d. a gallon or a period of nine years at 4d. per gallon. It involves a loss to the country in revenue of £4,500,000. What the exact cost is going to be I do not know, but if you assume that the 2,500 men who will be employed by this process were receiving unemployment pay at the rate of; LI per 'head, that is £125,000 a year, therefore, the net loss to the Government is something like £875,000. The whole thing, as it stands at the moment, is experimental in
character, is costly and uneconomic, and I feel sure that the Government, if they give further consideration to the matter, will take steps to secure that the process is carried out with great care and that the taxpayers' money is. not wasted, as it has been on other schemes. You can produce any amount of oil from coal, just as you can produce any amount of sugar from beet; but at what cost? When the first subsidy was granted to sugar-beet it was to be only for a period; but what happened They came again for a little more. That is the danger. I fear that at the end of the four and a-half years if the 8d. import duty is still in existence Imperial Chemical Industries and others will come along and ask for an extension of the period. I ask the House to give careful consideration to this matter because on the question of employment the number you put on by this process will be displaced in the oil industry. Let me put this question to the Secretary for Mines. Is it a fact that there is a petroleum department attached to the Government? Is it or is it not the fact that the petroleum department was consulted on this matter? Has not the whole process been one of hush, hush, and that the whole thing has been carried on by the Mines Department without any consultation or co-operation with the Department of Petroleum?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I will answer that question at once. My Department is responsible for mines and petroleum.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. ROBINSON: I listened with very great care to the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White). It seemed to me that he was wandering about in a maze of misunderstandings. Perhaps the net result of his speech was this: He was afraid to praise the Governments' proposals for fear they should fail, and he was afraid to condemn them for fear they should succeed. Logically, if he carries the arguments that he used to the proper conclusion, they mean that it is to the advantage of this nation to buy our commodities abroad, so that we can get a tariff. revenue from them. That is a fair conclusion to draw from his speech. Indeed the hon. Member condemned the Government because they were giving a preference to some-
thing produced in this country and said how unfair it was that we should lose revenue, because in effect it was equal to the lowering of a tariff. I need only say that perhaps his argument has proved that the most expensive experiment ever made in this country was Free Trade.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen), and was amazed at the way he was able to prove that foreign oil was British oil, and that it was to the advantage of this country to continue to buy and use it. It seems to me that during the past year or so there has come about a most startling change in the condition of the coal industry. From the point of view of production it seemed to me that coal was rapidly becoming forgotten. I believe that now the coal industry, so far as production is concerned, is becoming the darling of the gods. I need only remind the House of the trade treaties and how they have helped coal; the Government's proposals for a tax on fuel oil, for which I assume that the Secretary for Mines was largely responsible; and, lastly, this effort to produce petrol from coal. I think that the last is the most outstanding thing that has so far been done to help the coal industry. I want to pay my tribute to the Secretary for Mines, who has shown such vigour since he has taken charge of this Department. I think that that has largely resulted in the tremendous improvement in the prospects of the coal industry.
The announcement of the Prime Minister last week was the most encouraging one that it has been my privilege to hear since I have been a Member of this House. It was well backed up two days later when, in answer to a question, we were told that this year the Admiralty were going to use five times as much fuel produced from coal as they used last year. I understand that that referred to the low temperature carbonisation process. It was an excellent thing. Then we heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Air that in order to help this process the Air Ministry was arranging that one of the home defence squadrons should use the same fuel.
I have special reasons for blessing this effort to help the coal industry. The
House knows that at the end of June there were 384,000 men unemployed in that industry, or 36 per cent. of the insured workers. That in itself is a cogent reason why the Government should devote their attention to the-industry. It has been said on reliable authority that the depression in the coal industry is costing this country £17,000,000 a year in payments from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. When things have come to that pass it is only right that the Government should try to find some new use for coal, and to open some new sphere of development in the industry. It will be interesting to know something more of the cost of this proposal to the country. It is generally understood that the Government's proposals mean a loss of £1,000,000 in revenue from the tariff which would have been levied on the imported spirit. I am wondering whether the Secretary for Mines can get figures which would show what will be the saving to the Unemployment Insurance Fund through the decrease in unemployment in the coal industry. I believe that such an estimate could be obtained. Eventually, when that is taken into account, when the returns of the profits of this industry come in, it will be seen that a large proportion of the money which has been remitted will find its way back into the pockets of the Government, so that the cost of the proposal will be negligible.
I commend the proposals, too, because I believe that they will result in a considerable relieving of the situation in the home market. Those of us who have studied the Coal Mines Act know full well the trouble there has been because the exporters on the North-East Coast, having lost their market, have turned round and come to the other home markets, for instance, the Lancashire market. If the North-East Coast can get some market for their coal it may relieve the pressure in the home market. The Prime Minister said that in building these new factories there will be employment for nearly 15,000 men, directly and indirectly. His remarks were backed up by the Chairman of the Imperial Chemical Industries, who announced that after six years of research they had brought their process to such a state that they could now come to the Government and ask for some concrete proposals. It must be a great satisfaction to the
House to know that about £2,500,000 is to be spent on plant. It is much more important that money should be spent in that way than that £2,500,000 should be spent on schemes of relief. This £2,500,000 will result, not in a mere monument being built and finished with, but in the setting up of a new industry which is bound to give employment as the work goes on.
I welcome these proposals, too, because I believe they will go a long way towards redressing the balance of trade. That was one of the purposes for which we were returned. We ought to make sure as far as possible that we are not dependent on the fluctuations of exchange, so that we can become more and more self-sufficient. In regard to national defence I believe the proposal is a good one. After all petrol is one of the most vital things in our national economy. I do not agree with the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire that if we do build a plant for the production of fuel in this country it will be destroyed by any possible enemy in time of war. That holds good whatever happens, wherever the production is; the potential enemy will at once go for it and try to destroy it, whether it is in this country or elsewhere. The enemy would try to sink our ships if the petrol came from abroad. It is just as well to have the thing in our own country. It is well, too, to have it within our own control, so that we shall be no longer dependent on the good will of other nations. It is only necessary to recall the Anglo-Persian oil dispute and the loss it might have meant to this country if the matter had not been quickly handled by the Government. We do not want to be dependent on the United States for our oil. Still less do we want to be dependent on Soviet Russia, which is one of the other sources on which we rely for our supplies.
I feel, too, that these proposals are the natural result of the policy of Imperial Preference which has been put forward by the Government. It follows that we must push that policy to its logical conclusion, and this is one of the ways of doing it. There is one important point about this preference, and that is that it is a guaranteed preference. I think it is splendid that the Government should give a guarantee for 10 years. I remember that when I made my maiden
speech in this House I said that no industry could carry on under an uncertainty. Perhaps I would welcome an extension of the principle of a guaranteed preference to remove some of the uncertainty under which the industries of this country suffer. I believe that this industry is bound to grow. The larger the output eventually, the lower the cost; behind the shelter of this preference it will be able to lower the cost of production so that eventually it may not need the preference which has been given by the Government.
As against that I think we must honestly recognise that the price of petrol is bound to rise. Policies all over the world are tending to raise the price of commodities. We have the President of the United States pledged to do everything possible to put into effect a policy which is bound to raise the price of petrol. That is one reason why I believe that this experiment will be successful. I hope that when its success has been proved we shall see extensions of this new industry all over the country. If only we could make ourselves self-sufficient we should be able to give employment to 82,500 men, of whom 49,000 would be coal miners. I would express the hope that when the time comes for Imperial Chemical Industries to extend their plant to other parts of the country they will remember Lancashire, where there are flourishing coalfields and skilled chemical workers who are only too anxious to have an opportunity of assisting in this great experiment.
Private enterprise has done well. There is no risk at all to the Government in this matter. If the experiment fails it will cost the Government nothing, because the Treasury will continue to get revenue from the imported petrol. The guarantee of a preference amounting to £1,000,000 is not too large for such a tremendously important stimulus to industry as will be given in this case. I congratulate the Government on their success, on their negotiations with Imperial Chemical Industries, and I congratulate our manufacturers and our scientists on their enterprise. I believe that there is nothing more stimulating than to see the Government and science marching together hand-in-hand for the common good of our people.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. SLATER: I would like to add my meed of praise and congratulation to what the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Robinson) has just said regarding the Government and this far-reaching legislation. The Government have undoubtedly taken, in this assistance to the producers of petrol from coal, the second greatest step in the history of the National Government. I think it is only second to the great conversion of War Loan. It has in it elements so far-reaching in their importance, that even we who have a very intimate connection with the industry can have but small conception of. There has been to-day from the Liberal benches a doubt expressed as to whether this is a wise departure on the part of the Government. Personally, I share the feeling of the hon. Member for Widnes in regard to that matter. Looking at the coal industry as a whole it is quite clear that something is necessary to bring that industry from despair into some reasonable hope for the future, and the step now proposed by the Government has certainly filled those intimately connected with the industry with hope and encouragement.
Those who have practical knowledge of the oil question as well as the coal question ought at this stage to be perfectly honest and frank on this subject, and candidly I do not think that at this stage the production of oil from coal, as compared with importing it, can be strictly justified on a basis of comparable costs. It is better to face the facts, and we shall make no progress by hiding our heads in the sand when considering that aspect of the subject. It is clear that in order to get a proper conception of what is involved in the Government's proposals it is necessary to take into consideration what may possibly happen when this scheme has been developed for some little time. The real point to be kept in mind is this. I think oil experts throughout the world are clear that between 3d. and 4d. per gallon for petrol more or less represents the economic cost of production. But producers have been selling it at considerably less than that, and one wonders where the profits of the oil companies have come from during this period of selling oil at a price which is said to be less than the cost of production.
At any rate, the point is that the Imperial Chemical Industries and the people who are exploiting the low-temperature carbonisation process each have an equal opportunity at this stage to advance, with the knowledge that the Government have come to the conclusion, having taken all the circumstances into account, that it is better for us in this country that we should produce petrol from our own resources. That provides something which is necessary in any industry. As the hon. Member for Widnes rightly said, industry needs to have a goal, and if everybody is to work to attain the goal and do their best for all concerned, they must see some profit at the end of their efforts. The heads of this great industrial concern have decided, after considerable research, to risk their money in the exploitation of this plant. Previous speakers have expressed some doubt as to whether it is wise of them to do so or not. After all these are business people. Why should we show any special anxiety if they have decided that it is competent for them and is within the terms of their trusteeship for their shareholders, to put down plants for the extraction of petrol from coal? Why should hon. Members here raise any difficulty about it?
We in this House have to decide this as a question of national economy. For us it is a question of what this proposal will mean to the nation. We are told that it will put into work 1,000 miners in addition to 7,000, or perhaps 12,000, other workers directly and indirectly engaged in connection with manufacturing the plant. Some people have spurned this suggestion and have said that this is no great contribution to employment in this country. I cannot regard those people as serious in that view. Anything that puts any iron and steel workers into work. thereby creates work for our coal industry, and it must be in our interests to use every possible effort in that direction. Taking the long view, I believe that the Government are sowing the seed of what may prove to be the greatest industry which this country will have in 10 years or 15 years time.
Of course there are difficulties. I could mention many. One which has occupied the attention of hon. Members to-day has been the possibility that we are not giving those who are exploiting the process of
low temperature carbonisation the same assistance as is being given to the other process. I think we can dismiss that suggestion at once. The Government are giving no preference to one plant or the other. They are simply saying to both:" Go ahead; do what you can to produce petrol from coal; each will have an equal opportunity." But when we come to make comparison, as to the incidence of success, of hydrogenation and low temperature carbonisation respectively, we find this important point of difference. One process produces coke or smokeless fuel which immediately becomes a competitor with coal, and as that coke is produced so miners are put out of work who have hitherto been providing house coal for consumers. We may have a purer atmosphere as the result of the substitution of smokeless fuel for coal but there is also the consideration to which I have referred.
I think it was in the second speech which I made here that I said the process of hydrogenation had always attracted me, because it left no residue or by-product which was competitive with any other type of production. I feel that the Government have largely in mind the success of this plant of Imperial Chemical Industries, but I am sure they also wish success, as do all hon. Members, to any other type of production, whether low temperature carbonisation or any other process. Many things may happen in the next few years. Mr. Henry Ford, discussing this question recently, said the future fuel for the internal combustion engine would be alcohol, and that the farmers were going to produce it. We may see many things happen and changed circumstances all over the world.
What we here have to consider now is the question: Is this step by the Government going to produce a credit in the national budget or a deficit I That is how we must judge it. My opinion is that for the moment it is not strictly economic as compared with the cost of imported petrol, but I would also say that the cost of producing petrol from coal by hydrogenation which has been given, namely 7d. per gallon, is capable of reduction. In fact I understand, though I cannot give details, that enormous economies have been made since that estimate was given. But whether or not those estimates are cor-
rect, there is also the question of national defence to be considered. I am sure that it will be a relief and a comfort to the Secretary of State for War, in the great anxieties of his office, to feel that we are laying the foundation of something which may give him an entirely different view of his task in the event of any national emergency.
There is another point involved. There is all the difference between a nation which has an instrument in its own hands for the production of fuel for the internal combustion engine and a nation which has none, when it comes to dealing with the possibilities of the future and with the large monopoly rings which exist in the oil world. The knowledge that this country can produce petrol in serious competition with the imported product is so important that we cannot calculate the result of this step in our national economy in terms of the first immediate saving. It must be calculated on a wider basis. If the oil companies of the world know that the slightest endeavour to exploit this country in the price of imported oil will be met instantly—once this industry is on a firm foundation—by the putting down of further plant, the result is obvious.
The importance of that consideration in connection with the question of our paying moneys abroad will be readily recognised by hon. Members. It might easily mean a difference of £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 saved in the cost of the imported production over a comparatively short period of years. Therefore, it is not the direct saving that we ought to consider so much as the fact that this would be an instrument of strength to us. We should have the knowledge in future that we could depend on ourselves in a time of emergency whereas hitherto we were dependent on others for the production of this petrol. Speaking as a business man rather than as a politician I think we ought to be in a position to say "No" to the foreign producing countries should the necessity arise. I agree that a large proportion of the money which we pay abroad for petrol comes back home to our own people but we had an example in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's dispute recently of the fact that we are not sure of foreign supplies. We never know whether in some national emergency circumstances may not arise to cut off our
supply. There may be revolutions. Large quantities of this oil comes from Mexico. Now we have the President of the United States making the greatest endeavours to bring the oil producing companies in that country as he says to common sense and causing them to raise their prices. We know that they produce 60 per cent. of the world supply and on that subject I would commend to all hon. Members the facts which were given by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in his speech.
It is the policy of the United States Government to force up prices. Is this not the psychological moment for our Government to make a gesture 1 Is this not the time for us to take a step, not only to relieve our internal distress in regard to employment and give hope to the coalfields, but also to give a, message to the rest, of the world that Britain's policy in regard Ito this fuel is to be one of providing it for herself. As I say. I regard this as the second most important thing which this Government has done, and I am sure that coal owners and coalminers alike will bless them for doing it. I want to record my appreciation of the untiring energy of the Secretary for Mines who has put all his strength into the task of forcing the Cabinet to bring this matter to a head. We owe him a great debt of gratitude, and I believe I am speaking for the coalowners of the country in tendering him sincere congratulations. I am sure that view is shared not only by the miners, but by the steel workers and by all the other people who will benefit from this outstanding piece of legislation which is projected by the Government.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: With all respect, it seems to me that hon. Members in this Debate are in some danger of losing a sense of proportion regarding this proposal. Some hon. Members speak of it in lyrical terms, as though this country were about to embark upon a new industrial revolution. They speak in a strain which suggests that, once this proposal has been carried out, we have only to sit down and the industrial millennium will have been achieved. There are others who have spoken and who have made it clear that this is so colossal a blunder that the nation will be ruined
as a consequence and that taxation will be mountains high. As a matter of fact, the truth does not even lie between these two extremes, as it sometimes does. The truth is of an entirely different, character. It seems to me that when hon. Members speak about the large numbers of miners who will be put in employment by this project, they are really losing all sense of proportion. The Prime Minister, who certainly would not be guilty of understatement in a matter of this kind, puts it at 1,000 miners, when there are in Great Britain over 300,000 miners out of employment, and Mr. Garvin has a huge article in the "Observer," with all those pompous and flambuoyant headings of which he is a master, asking the nation to hold up its hands in admiration, and stating that at last the National Government is justifying its existence. It is the travail of an elephant giving birth to a flea.
The reason why there is all this fuss about this matter is that it is the only thing that the National Government have done, and it is necessary at this time, in order to prepare the public mind for the complete collapse of the World Economic Conference, that something should be done. Some flag must be waved. If hon. Members, however, want to get this proposal in its right proportion, let them remember that the little quarrel which the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs is carrying on with Ireland has already put more than four times the number of miners out of work that this project will ever put into work. That has been cheered by every Tory in the House of Commons, and they ask us to rejoice because of this marvellous proposal of the Government. Not merely that, but the tariff policy of the Government is regarded as principally responsible for this benefit, because otherwise there would not be any preference to give; but that tariff policy has put out of work more than six or seven times more miners than this is likely to put into work for many years to come.

Mr. SLATER: It cannot be so. We have put 400,000 more into work.

Mr. BEVAN: That is all very well for election speeches in Eastbourne, but it will not do in this House.

Mr. SLATER: It is true, and what the hon. Member says is not.

Mr. BEVAN: Many other hon. Members want to speak, and so I will not continue the argument with the hon. Member. What has actually happened is that the processes of coal distillation have reached a point where they need to have spent upon them larger sums of money than unsupported private interests can bear. That seems to be the position. There are certain industries that can be started with a very small amount of capital and which are able to pioneer their way to commercial success without the expenditure of any large sum of money. A product can be commercially exploited, and therefore large sums of capital are attracted for its further production after its commercial possibilities have been fully realised; but in the case of coal distillation a very, very large sum of money requires to be spent upon plant before the possibilities of its commercial exploitation have been fully ascertained, and in modern circumstances that expenditure cannot be undertaken by private concerns without some sort of collective safeguard or protection. That is not merely the case with coal distillation; it has been the case with many other commercial proposals that the amount of capital involved is entirely out of proportion to the risks that have to be undertaken.
That is the complete answer to the Members of the Liberal party who are continually complaining about Government intervention in these matters. It is very often necessary for the State to provide some form of safeguard if new industries are to have a sufficient atmosphere of security in which to proceed with their experiments. It was not the case in the nineteenth century, when industry was on a small scale, when capital equipment was comparatively small and the amount of capital expenditure was very little. Private industry could then go on with experimentation and the opening up of new industries without any form of collective organisation. But we have reached now the scale of millions of pounds' worth of expenditure upon equipment, and private enterprise cannot carry it. That is the position, as I understand it, with regard to Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited. I believe that they are undertaking an experiment in which it may be that they will lose money, but that is not the aspect of the problem which I want to bring before the House.
We take up this view, that if private enterprise is in a position where it requires State support for its further exploitation, the State is entitled to lay down the conditions under which that support is to be given. Private enterprise is certainly entitled, on the basis of existing economic laws, to take the fullest measure of freedom in the direction of its affairs if it undertakes all the risks involved and does not come to the State for any assistance. Profit, I was told in my economic textbook, is the reward of risks. It is not merely the goal, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater) quite frankly said it was it is the reward too.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The miners' wages should be very high, then.

Mr. BEVAN: Of course. It is an old Socialist contention, that a man risks more when he risks his life than when he risks his money, and therefore his wages ought to be very much higher than the profits. But the point that I am making to the House is that it is making the worst of both worlds. It has not the comparative wholesomeness of competitive private enterprise, carrying its own risks and producing whatever benefits for the community it can produce, nor has it the benefit of collective State planning. This is a particularly vicious example of the same process, because this is an attempt to organise by bribery. You give Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, and the holding company which holds all the patents for this distillation process the protection of communal security. You are not entitled to do it, of course. When an hon. Member behind me said that we were going to provide them with eight to 10 years' preference, he was speaking quite beside the mark, because this House cannot give such a guarantee beyond the next Finance Bill. This Government cannot pledge future Governments, nor indeed can one year pledge another. Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, is basing its expectations upon the hope that the National Government will be in office for 10 years, but what it hopes for the Government would be disastrous for the nation.
The point that I am emphasising is that if the State has to go to the assistance of private enterprise in this way, we are indeed entitled to say," The considerations upon which you earn your
profit have now disappeared. You are unable to earn your dividends in the old ways in which you formerly earned them. If you are to be allowed the private ownership of this concern, you must be allowed it only as a steward and no longer as an exploiter. It is only when you were in possession of this property and bore all the risks involved that you were entitled to do what you liked with your own, but having to come to the community for help, you must now become partners in this arrangement." What are we asking Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, to do 7 We did not start off with the advantage of a statement from the Minister of Mines, and therefore I must anticipate, not having heard it from the Prime Minister, that all that we have said is this:" We are prepared to give you a preference upon petrol distilled from home-produced fuels, and you go on with the job. We do not ask you to do anything more." Is that true 7 Is that the kind of bargain which has been struck? If Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, succeeds, it will, as has been pointed out, succeed at the expense to the Exchequer of a very considerable sum of money. It is perfectly true that additional miners will have been put in work, but not in anything like the proportion of the money which will be extracted from the national revenues. I am striving to point out that if, as is admitted on all sides, it is necessary for the State to give a preference of this kind, we are entitled to obtain our pound of flesh, we are entitled to exact from these beneficiaries some benefit for ourselves.
The point of view which this party is striving to put in this Debate is that here is something which may grow into a very important industry. We can put it no higher than that. If it becomes an important industry, its efficient exploitation will change the physical character of British industry, and it will have a profound effect upon the location of our sources of power. One of the gravest problems with which this country is confronted is the growing dereliction of the old centres of extraction of power, the dereliction of Durham, portions of Lancashire, Lanarkshire, and South Wales, a growing dereliction which is causing the most frightful social problems
in those areas, which is disorganising local government, and which is causing a drift of the population to the south and south-east which, if allowed to continue, will have the consequence in a quarter of a century of destroying all the beauties of rural England and leaving dereliction in the north and the west.
I submit, therefore, that if there is any person in this House who has any genuine love for Great Britain and the countryside, he should be attempting to exact from the Government, when proposals like these are before the House, some guarantees and some assurances that if these new industries are to be set up, they should be set up in the old centres of industry, where the large masses of population are at present situated, and arrest the drift of population which is not merely disorganising local government but destroying most of the beauties of rural England. This is one of the points which we would put to the Minister in this Debate, that the Government should insist that governmental assistance should be accompanied by governmental direction. I do not believe this House minds paying a greater price for its part, provided that that greater price is accompanied, among other advantages, by intelligently organised distribution of our labour forces in Great Britain.
I do not subscribe to the point of view which has been put from the Liberal benches that this is an entirely uneconomic proposition. What I cannot understand about Liberal economics is this: They will admit that a new product might put out of production a rival product which cannot be produced at the same price, but they will not admit that that process is entirely uneconomic if the persons who produced the first product are not put in employment in sufficient numbers producing some substituted product. What has happened in this country is that the growth of imported oil has put out of work many colliery workmen. That process would be perfectly economic if you succeeded in putting those idle colliers to work producing something else, but as you have failed to put them to work producing something else, the cost of their idleness must be an addition to the price of imported fuel oil. The doctrine of laissez faire is all wrong, for it does not take into consideration many of
the costs that ought to be charged to the new product that has come on to the market.
I would ask my hon. Friends who applauded that principle to carry it to its logical conclusion, which is that if products are to be charged with social costs, they should be charged also with social burdens. If they are to have a social price, they must pay for social obligations. That is a principle which is so fundamentally opposed to the policy of hon. Members opposite, that I am quite satisfied that in this case and in many other cases they will refuse to carry their own beliefs to their logical conclusion. I would like to ask the Minister of Mines, when he replies, to furnish the House with what the interests which are being safeguarded are to secure in return for the concessions which we are giving to them, so that we may be able to judge the whole thing from that basis. If they are giving nothing for what they are taking, this is not national planning, but simply a further example of Conservative bribery.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. DICKIE: I desire to extend to the Government and to the Minister of Mines my cordial congratulations on the action they have taken, and the proposals they have made for bringing some increased measure of prosperity to the mining industry. Many of us who represent mining constituencies have been advocating something of this kind for very many years, and I think it will be true to say that in doing so Members of all parties have been actuated only by a single desire to get the best out of what is our greatest raw material and our greatest national asset. For 10 years, Coalition Governments, Socialist Governments and Conservative Governments have been investigating this problem, and to those who are supporters of the National Government, and who represent mining constituencies, there was no more pleasing announcement than that which was made by the Prime Minister last week. To Liberal supporters of the Government it is even more gratifying not only because it is the work of the National Government, but because that work has been carried out by a Liberal President of the Board of Trade and the task of seeing the scheme carried through to practical fruition is in the hands of a Liberal Secretary for Mines.
The introduction of these proposals marks the culmination of something like eight years' advocacy of proposals which the Liberal party has laid before the country and the House, for doing the very thing which we are considering today. During the lifetime of the first Socialist Government in 1924, the Liberal party published a little volume entitled" Coal and Power," in which great emphasis was laid on the question which we are discussing and on the vital necessity of getting to grips with this problem and finding some solution of it. At a later stage we had the report of the Samuel Commission, which produced one of the most valuable documents relating to any industry. That report also laid down the urgent necessity for scientific development in the direction which we are considering to-day. In that respect I cannot do better than quote from the report of the Commission, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place. The Commission pointed out that only one-quarter of the coal used in this country is treated so as to obtain from it the value of the substances which it contains. After having spoken of the more scientific utilisation of coal, the report goes on to say that; linked up with this subject is the question of extracting oil from coal by various processes. Successful application of these processes on a large scale would help to eliminate smoke from the atmosphere, improve the health of the people, exercise a beneficial effect upon temperament, give greater scope to the Acts, and add to the amenities of towns. The report goes on to point out that the country would be less dependent upon imported oil, and low-grade coal could be put to profitable use, bringing a proportionate gain to the miners and mineowners.
The report proceeds to urge that greater attention should be given by the State to this problem, and insists on a more intensive research in this direction. In the interval these recommendations have been acted upon, and to-day, as a result of long and patient research, we are on the eve of great achievements. Instead of finding fault with these proposals, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen ought to be proud that he is seeing the fructification of his labours as Chairman of that important
Commission. There was an interpolation about the Yellow Book this afternoon. That followed the report of the Samuel Commission, and was a result of an industry presided over by one of our greatest economists, Sir Walter Leyton. On the Committee were the present Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, and the present Secretary for Mines. That Committee was even more emphatic, and it pointed to the need for embarking on an inquiry and for commercial exploitation in the direction which we are considering to-day. The Liberal Inquiry Report used these words:
It is this sphere which offers the largest scope for the measures which will raise the coal mining industry from the slough in which it now finds itself. The more scientific utilisation of coal, the full exploitation of every one of its valuable constituents the utilisation of grades that have hitherto been regarded as little better than waste, the efficient preparation of the products for the market—here lies in the long run the best hope for the future.
In view of all this, and in view of the number of committees and commissions that have inquired into the state of the mining industry, and having regard to the enormous amount of work which has been done by the Fuel Research Board and by private firms, I submit. that it is utterly futile to suggest that we should have another committee to inquire further into this matter.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The hon. Member does not agree with the first speaker on his side?

Sir ROBERT HORNE: There are two types of Liberals.

Mr. DICKIE: The Liberal party will he in a bad way when there are as many types of Liberalism as there are types of Socialism. No case has been made out for any further inquiry. Moreover, time is pressing. The industry cannot wait. Coal production has fallen from 287,000,000 tons in 1913, to 209,000,000 tons last year. Exports have fallen from 98,000,000 tons to 53,000,000 tons, and the number of men employed—by far the most vital factor—has fallen from 1,208,000 in 1913, to 756,000. In one part of my constituency alone there are something like 16,000 people registered, and
over 8,000 are out-of-work miners. In the county of Durham there are something like 40,000 miners out of employment through no fault of their own.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) asked me 11 1 did not agree with the criticism that came from Liberal speakers. I am definitely of the opinion that those criticisms are unjustified. They can only be explained either by lack of knowledge, or lack of appreciation of the real plight of the workers in the coalfield, or by the fact that those who make these criticisms are blinded by prejudice and a doctrinaire opposition to State assistance to any industry, no matter what that industry may be. One of the things which startles me, and which I submit to the consideration of the House, is that the Government are providing no money in this case. All that they are doing is to provide a guarantee. The Government can give a guarantee of £4,000,000 to Austria, £2,000,000 to Palestine and £500,000 to Newfoundland with hardly anybody protesting, but the moment they proceed to give a guarantee, limited both in period of time arid in the amount of money, for the development of oil from coal, there is a loud outcry from various sections of the House. That is a form of mentality which I cannot understand. Whatever other Members on these benches may say, I want the Government to realise that these proposals have my whole-hearted approval, and I think I can say that also for the section of the Liberal party for which I have the honour to speak.
I would like to say a word in reply to criticisms from the Labour party. We have had a number of speeches from the other side of the House, but there has not been one constructive criticism. Here we have something which does at least bring a gleam of hope into the coalfields of this country and into the distressed areas, where there are thousands of miners out of work, and except for vague references to nationalisation, public ownership and democratic control, we have had nothing of a practical nature from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Will the hon. Member do the House the honour of replying to the Debate instead of giving the speech which he prepared before the Debate started?

Mr. DICKIE: The hon. Member spoke about truth. If he will wait until these experiments have been carried out, he will find that truth is like oil—it always comes out on top. I am old enough to have seen democratic control in practice. We had nationalisation only a few years ago, and during the period it was in operation the number of men employed in the mining industry increased by 100,000 and the output decreased by 47,000,000 tons per annum. It was little wonder that the Coalition Government of the day found themselves faced under nationalisation with the loss of £5,000,000 per month, and that they were compelled to decontrol the industry, which they speedily did.
I would like to know, in the interests of the miners themselves—my miners just as well as theirs—what is the proposal they have to make? Only on Saturday the ex-Secretary for Mines, speaking in Durham, dismissed this proposition, if you please, as a pure ramp. The ex-Secretary for Mines! He spoke with greater responsibility when he stood at that Box. He sneered at the fact that the first instalment—the mere instalment—of the plan was going to give employment only to some 1,000 miners. We who have to live among miners are grateful for anything which will give employment even to 100 more—and this is only the beginning. There have been many unfortunate pronouncements, and this statesmanlike utterance of the ex-Secretary for Mines is not in any way singular. He wound up by saying that the miners need a repetition of the events of 1926. In the interests of my constituency I do not want to see any repetition of 1926, and I would urge hon. Members opposite, if they have nothing better than that to suggest, to set their intelligences and their brains to work to see whether they cannot bring forward some proposal of a more practical character which will be a benefit to those who, they continually tell us, they, and they alone, rightfully represent.
Very little has been said about one aspect of the problem. We have in this country already a very valuable by-product industry, and it is a very satisfactory feature of these proposals that the position of that industry will be stabilised and secured. In conclusion, I would like to say that nationalisation, as advocated by the hon. Member for Aberdare, has been
tried, weighed in the balance and found wanting wherever it has been applied. It does not appeal to me in so far as this particular industry is concerned. I very much prefer the method adopted by His Majesty's Government, arid I hope there will be no undue delay in the matter, but that they will press forward with this scheme, and I hope that it will speedily bring in its train a new era of prosperity for the mining industry in this country.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The House must regret that a Debate of this importance has been limited to the short time that we have to-day, and feel sorry that we shall be deprived of further stages of the entertainment we have had from the Liberal benches, when hon. Members there state exactly what their policy is. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) asked us what our policy is. He had better ask the friends who sit beside him and who moved this Amendment about their policy. As I heard that Amendment being moved from the Liberal benches, it struck me that the greatest pity about it was that it diverted attention from one of the ablest speeches on the mining situation and on oil which we have heard in this House for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) made a speech of a type which only he, with his peculiar knowledge, is able to make. In that speech he revealed not only an understanding of the industry and of the problems it has to face, but also a vision of the possibilities of the industry, if organised, such as is seldom presented to this House.
It is necessary to underline one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdare. In the first place, the House and the country ought clearly to understand that whatever there is in this scheme, taking the most optimistic statements made up to the present time, it will meet hardly a fraction of the real mining problem. If I have a fault, it is a tendency to undue optimism, and I can understand why the Government should make a great deal of this present they are giving to Imperial Chemical Industries. I can understand why they should try to give this scheme a good send-off, and use it as a means of creating optimism in industry throughout the country beyond the range of the immediate value of the scheme; but if hon. Members will only
realise how the hopes of the unemployed miners round the pits have been raised unduly at the prospect of something immediately happening—and there are 400,000 who are unemployed—I think they will agree that the effect of it from that aspect has been almost cruel in view of the little which will be done in the next few years.

Mr. SLATER: It is rattling the speakers on your side.

Mr. LAWSON: I will leave that observation to the hon. Member's own interpretation. What is the position? We understand that at the most there are about 1,000, or perhaps 2,500, who will be directly employed at the outset. I do not want to belittle such an achievement, but the work which will be found for 2,500 extra men would not really be sufficient to give regular employment to those who are already working. That is the real truth of the business—and there are 400,000 wholly unemployed in the industry. However successful, this scheme will not meet the natural reduction, the wastage, due to speeding-up and machinery. The point I want to make clear is that it is no real, fundamental solution of the coal industry's problem.

Mr. DICKIE: Who ever said it was?

Mr. LAWSON: It is being put forward as though it were an alternative, and the only alternative, to other means of meeting the problem of the mining industry. In the last 12 months, 34,000 miners have been thrown permanently out of work, and that is a process which is going on to an increasing extent. I want to put very clearly the point that this position of affairs can only be met by the general easing of those who sometimes have to work overtime and the lowering of the hours generally of the men in the industry. Incidentally, I appreciate the fact that Imperial Chemical Industries established itself, and has developed in one of the old mining areas. If it is a question of balancing their action and that of other private concerns, well, there is a good deal to be said for Imperial Chemical Industries. There is a lot of talk about light industries coming to the South because rates are lower and costs are less, but those who know the facts know that that is not the real reason at all. I have become somewhat cynical
about some of these gentlemen. As a matter of fact, they are more interested in long week-ends in London—some of them—than they are in business. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Business men who have tested the difference in rates and costs as between the North and the South do not agree that there is any justification, from that point of view, for people moving to the South. I may say that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), whose speeches I often appreciate, reminded me very much of the famous story—it is famous in the North, at any rate—of the first engine that ran from Shildon to Darlington, and the old gentleman who was walking around it and who said, in his Durham dialect, that he was sure it would "never gang," and when he saw it going and had got his breath again, yelled that it would never stop. I think that is pretty much the position of the Liberals who are moving this Amendment. The Miners' Federation has discussed this matter, and says:
While welcoming the declaration of the Government to encourage the production of oil from British coal, a proposal that has long been advocated by the Federation, it deplores the effect of the Government's proposals in so far as it leaves the development of the new industry to several private concerns with conflicting processes and policies.
It then goes on to urge the point put forward by the hon. Member for Aberdare that there should be public ownership and control, with a national authority charged with the responsibility of the conduct and development of the industry and its integration with the coal byproduct industry. There is a very real danger in the absolute lack of control that accompanies the subsidy to be given to this particular firm. Problematical amounts have been mentioned, based upon the assumed output. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to tell us how much the Government estimate that this is going to cost them, and tell us more about the agreement which has been made. Has an agreement been made?

Mr. E. BROWN: If the hon. Member has seen the published announcement by the Prime Minister, he knows all that the Government know about the matter.

Mr. LAWSON: I think the astonishment of the House will be reflected in the country. The statement made by the Prime Minister told us nothing, except
that a subsidy of 4d. a gallon was to be given, without any understanding, any agreement, or any control whatever. There is no particular credit to Imperial Chemical Industries in this matter, because the Government's own experimental station made considerable advance in the same direction, and towards the end at which Imperial Chemical Industries have arrived. Other industrial organisations have done the same. The main question that occupies us to-night is not merely: Is it going to employ more miners? but: Is it going to improve the position of the miners who are at work? Those of us in the industry know very well that the by-products industries have increased the real value of coal, but have not added much to the comfort or standards of life of the miners. The position is not only open to the just complaint that we made long ago—during last year this has been a strong case—originally in the county from which I come, and in which we used to have coal taken into the sum total of the pool. Everyone knows that thereby the total income of the trade is measured up, and that the wages are largely based upon that.
We always argued that the byproducts that came out of coal, particularly when colliery companies were interested in them, should give opportunities for increasing the value of coal in that district, and for improving the position of the miners. The owners may not have accepted that, but commissions have regularly accepted the proposition that those who work in the production of the raw material should benefit to some extent by the increase in the value of that raw material, when by-products are taken from it. They have gone further than that, and we hold the very firm conviction that by-products have been used to squeeze prices down, in order to reduce the miners' wages. The Commission that investigated this matter had no doubt whatever that certain companies had sold themselves coal below price. I assure hon. Members that this is a fact. In my experience as a member of a conciliation board with the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), I can say that the coalowners did not challenge that allegation, because they said that they had a right to do what they liked with their own coal. We say that it ought to go into the general pool.
Here is something which, it is claimed, is going to produce a great revolution. That is potential. It is easy to understand that, in the early part of the 19th century we had not sufficient experience to enable us to adapt ourselves, in the chaotic condition of industry and of the mining industry and because of the lack of knowledge about that industry. It was difficult to bring the valuable products of coal into the general pool of wages with a view to raising the standards of the miners. Those who are concerned with by-products are very often in a better position than those who are in the industry itself. The men who are working the by-products are in a better position, so far as wages are concerned, than men who work in the pit. It is now assented to, throughout the country, that the men who do the rough and dangerous work below are entitled, not merely to an improved position, but to a share in any scientific improvements that add to the real value of the product.
If this subsidy is to go on, and if oil is produced from coal by the chaotic methods which were characteristic of the 19th century, the result will not merely be that the miners' position is not improved, but that the pressure for cheap coal will have the effect of depressing the condition of the miners who are already working. I do not take any joy in expressing such a view, but I hold it simply as the result of experience in the increase of by-products during the past years. The Government ought to have some controlling hand in this matter. It is all very well to encourage production, but the Government have no right to let the social advances of science, which have been gained not merely from their own discoveries but which are the common contribution from many sources to which the State has made a contribution, go into the hands of a private company, and to subsidise that company without any control or understanding as to the conditions upon which that industry is to be run.
I warn the House that you cannot expect agreement to that from men of great intelligence in the twentieth century, who are working under worse conditions than some of us did. Some of us had longer hours, but we had a sort of little patch to ourselves, and we were not driven by a machine, or by a whole set of processes, taking away what little bit of independ-
ence there used to be in the industry. Bad as it was before—and it was bad enough—this is worse. I am no lover of the machine, as it has impinged itself on the men who work in the mines under very great economic pressure. Is the new condition of things to be uncontrolled, to he used by a private company, or by other private companies, and helped by the Government with a subsidy, in order to increase that economic pressure for cheaper coal? If the Secretary for Mines has nothing more to tell the House than what the Prime Minister told it, the Government have not made any bargain, and have not made any contribution towards the unemployed problem in the way in which an impression was given to the country during the last few days.
The hon. Member for Consett spoke about the question of wages. I do not mind telling the House that, so far as wages are concerned, the wonder to me is not that there has been trouble in the coalfield, but that there has not been more trouble. I have sometimes heard rude remarks about 1926, and sometimes there has seemed to be an attempt from our own side to try to apologise for it. It is a poor soldier who looks back upon a battle and does not see where a mistake in moves has been made, out one thing I never regret is that the miners had sufficient pluck and courage to stand up for improving their conditions, which not only this country but the world admits are unworthy of the men who have to risk their lives in working in dangerous and disagreeable conditions all the days of their lives. This House may take it for granted, that if the Government are to give full and free control to private capitalism helped by a Government subsidy, using the results of what has been practically social scientific research, we are in for more trouble in the days to come. Men are not likely to allow to continue a state of things which is unworthy of the House and of the country. There was an excuse in the nineteenth century, but such a state of things is inexcusable in the twentieth century. An opportunity like this ought to have been taken by the Government for some sort of control, even if they were allowing the matter to go into private hands. There should have been some sort of direction with a view to planning the industry, so that
while more employment might have been given, some contribution would have been made towards improving the conditions and the wages of those who get the raw material in the mines.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: It is obvious from the discussion that I am in the happy position of having to defend a policy which, as regards its desired end, has the general approval of the House—with one exception, to which I will refer a little later. It will not have escaped notice, by those who have listened to the Debate, that the objections which have been raised are not to the announcement that was made of this great experiment in a new form of getting oil from coal, but rather as to the form that it should take, and as to the method that the Government have employed in consultation with Imperial Chemical Industries, in order to see that a start is made. I have not to debate whether it is desirable, because that is generally agreed. The announcement of 17th July by the Prime Minister is not merely welcomed in all quarters of the House, but it has had a wide welcome in the country. will go further and say, that as I sat here and heard many hon. Members this afternoon, I have, in the intervals of reflecting upon the questions which have been put to me, interested myself by imagining the kind of speeches that would have been made if this experiment had been started by a Labour Secretary for Mines, instead of by a Minister in a National Government. [Interruptions] That may be the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I said that it would not have been in this form.

Mr. BROWN: It might be, if the lion. and learned Gentleman were responsible for some other form, that there would be nothing at all. I propose in a moment or two to discuss that very thing, because he himself called attention to this problem just over a year ago. I am. therefore, happy to be here to explain this policy and to clear up any doubts there may be. The scheme announced sounded complicated, but it is, in essence. quite simple. Anyone, not merely Imperial Chemical Industries, not merely any low temperature carbonisation firm, not merely any gas company,
not merely the shale oil companies, but anyone who by any process cares to manufacture motor spirit from home-produced coal, shale, peat, or derivatives thereof—not heavy petroleum oil,. as my hon. Friend seemed to understand just now—is guaranteed a preference of 4d. per gallon. It may last nine years from 1st April, 1935. If the present tax of 8d. a gallon should continue to be imposed without an excise duty, then the guarantee would last 10 years from that date. If there is any intermediate rate of preference, the period of the guarantee will vary in proportion. The guarantee is to be made statutory in the autumn, by legislation.
We are quite aware of the point made by one hon. Member, that no Government can bind successive Governments. We are quite content to believe that once this experiment is started upon, and the Act is on the Statute Book, it will be interesting to see the body of men, concerned in the well-being of this nation and the coalfields of this country, who will attempt to repeal it. Imperial Chemical Industries have announced, through their chairman, that they propose to start this big new experiment on the basis of the announcement by the Prime Minister. That is a proof that they regard the risk to which the hon. Member referred, added to the other risks—and they are not few—as risks which they are prepared to undertake. It has these advantages, as well as disadvantages, that, first of all, it avoids any direct contribution from the Treasury; secondly, that it encourages a great enterprise in a form without risk of additional cost to the consumer, and it is, as a matter of fact, breaking a monopoly conferred by the caprice of nature and enhances the wealth conferred upon us by that same caprice. That is the policy in essence. We are a coal-producing country, and few will seriously challenge the wisdom of doing everything practicable to produce at least a proportion of oil products from our greatest national asset, coal. That is common ground, I think, with one exception.
We have to argue three issues—two issues in terms of theory, and one issue in terms of fact. What are the arguments about theory? The theory of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G.
Hall), who put it very clearly—and which was supplemented by the hon. Member who has just sat down—is that this thing should be done only on one of two conditions—either as a national monopoly euphemistically called by the hon. Member" national planning,' or that it should take the form of control by the Government over those who are taking advantage of the guarantee. I do not think I have unfairly stated the point of view hon. Members hold. There is a short answer to that. I will give it in one sentence. The answer is, that if that had been the line of policy pursued, there would be no Minister standing here announcing that a new experiment is to be carried out. That is the short and, I think, the sufficient answer. I go further. Take the theoretical ground. The hon. Member for Aberdare makes able speeches about national plans. As far as I am aware, I have not seen any details of any national plan for getting oil from coal. I have seen some suggestions for a combination of the Government and industry—a measure of joint control. If the Miners' Federation of Great Britain have any detailed plan for solving this problem by means of joint control or national monopoly, the mining industry, and their supporters, are entitled to see it. It has never been brought forward. It has not been discussed, and we do not know what it is.
That is all I wish to say about that point, except that it seems to be assumed that it would be an easy matter for a Socialist Government to get agreement on this subject. The main process in which the country is interested was not invented in this country, and it might not have been as easy as hon. Members opposite suggest to get an agreement as to joint control, joint ownership, or joint working of the process. The process is a highly specialised one, and I should have thought that this is not the sort of case in which hon. Members would try out a national scheme. I wonder if any such scheme is ready or whether plans have been considered for overcoming difficulties which arise from the fact that the process was not invented in this country, and that its present position has only been reached as a result of international arrangements. I wonder whether that has been considered. If it has been, hon. Members opposite are optimistic in think-
ing they would get agreement on that basis.
The position that Imperial Chemical Industries are in of being able to proceed was only created by favourable conditions which were the result of arrangements by four large groups in the United States, Germany, Holland and our own country. A large number of hydrogenation patents were in existence, and much work had been done on the process in other countries. Two years ago the parties referred to decided to pool their patent rights, and in place of friction, and probably protracted litigation, each group was thereby able to secure the benefit of the work done by the others. Suppose the British Government desired a Government monopoly, or national control, and had not been able to secure the rights in this country, I imagine they would have had serious difficulty in coming to an arrangement with the international interests concerned. The other theoretical objection comes from below the Gangway. I have not heard any objection to the preference definitely raised by any Member.
At the moment, what is the actual position? Ever since the imposition of the first 4d. duty on imported spirit there has been no Excise Duty on oil products raised in this country from indigenous materials. Last year 40,000,000 gallons were produced, and there was no duty on that. This proposal is not new; what is new is that it is being given a definite form—a promised statutory form for a definite period, and on a definite basis. I was surprised to bear my hon. Friend talk about a Select Committee. I did not take it quite as seriously as I might have done when I read the names of hon. Members supporting his Motion. They are numerous, and we respect them, but for issues concerning coal mining, and the iron and steel industry—basic industries in the distressed areas—if my hon. Friend below the Gangway sincerely wanted a Select Committee, surely the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who was persuaded that hydrogenation is right, the name of my predecessor, the names of the two Members who sit for Durham coal constituencies, and the names of the two Members for Middlesbrough ought to have been down on this
Motion if the House was expected to take it seriously.
My hon. Friend spoke about making the best of both worlds. There was a famous preacher in the City Temple who was accused of exhorting young people to make the best of both worlds. The Motion for a Select Committee seems to he making the best of three worlds. That Motion does three things. It enables hon. Members below the Gangway to avoid any pronouncement on the main issue as to whether they are in favour of this policy; it enables them to maintain an abstract conviction about preference and, therefore, to say they are against preference; and, thirdly, because the names of those hon. Members really interested in these big industrial constituencies are not on the Motion, it enables them to remain discreetly silent, although their friends want a Select Committee of the House. I do not think that the House will take the Motion seriously. Whatever our views may be about this matter, we are agreed that something should be done as quickly as possible; we want no delaying action.
Delay means risk, and risk to the country. A Select Committee does not run any risk—not even the risk of having its report accepted. We are now considering a very big issue—the result in the political sphere of a great process of chemical development. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will remember seeing outside gasworks notices saying" waste products sold here." "Waste products" is a term which has been replaced by" by-products," and that is now being replaced by" derivatives"—a much more far-reaching and fundamental term. I say this because I want the House and the country to understand that this guarantee is not to be construed in terms of one company or one process. There are four principal ways of getting motor spirit from home-produced materials: from shale, benzol, by the gasworks and coke ovens, by the process known as" scrubbing"—last year the gasworks and coke ovens obtained some 26,000,000 to 30,000,000 gallons of benzol by that means; by low-temperature carbonisation plants of various kinds—and some of them are beginning to work them very successfully—and, lastly, there is this new process of hydrogenation.
May I say about the low-temperature carbonisation industry that it has had many disappointments in the past, but some of the processes have turned the corner? At the Fuel Research Station most promising results have been obtained, and Low Temperature Carbonisation Company, Ltd., have extended their works at Askern. The House will be aware, from the answers of my hon. Friends representing the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, that that company has been supplying fuel both to the Admiralty and to the Royal Air Force with good results and in growing amounts. Mention has been made of the statement of the Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries, but nothing has been said about a statement which was made by Colonel Bristow, the Chairman of Low Temperature Carbonisation Company, Ltd. Colonel Bristow, it will be noted, has optimistic views about the effect of this guarantee. I have not time to quote from the actual speech that he delivered, but, if hon. Members will turn to it, they will find that he thinks that the guarantee, in terms of low temperature carbonisation, may mean an extension of that process. He also referred to certain parts of the country where it is possible that developments may take place. As regards benzol, the production of benzol has been established in this country for a number of years. At the Beckton Gas Works alone, about 10 per cent. of the 30,000,000 gallons is produced.
I mention these processes, as I have mentioned the names of some of the prominent men connected with them, in order that the House may clearly understand, arid the country may clearly understand, that this guarantee cannot be discussed merely in terms of one process or of one company. There is no monopoly in the guarantee. All processes undertaken by people in this country who are working on coal, peat, shale or their derivatives which are indigenous in this country will be covered by the guarantee.
Now let me turn to the issue which has attracted most attention, namely, that of hydrogenation. That simply means, of course, the addition of hydrogen to an unsaturated body. It is the treatment of coal or coal tar with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst at a temperature of about 450 degrees
Centigrade and under great pressure. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to know what a catalyst is, T can tell him. It is an element which is neutral, which produces reactions upon other elements, but which does not itself suffer any permanent change. May I say a word or two about the issue which has been raised in connection with the question of hydrogenation? The House must understand that for years the Government have kept closely in touch with the development of the process. Consultations have taken place over and over again, and successive Governments have had full information about the working of the process. Indeed, just over two years ago Imperial Chemical Industries gave full facilities to the Director of Fuel Research to investigate the work which was being done at Billingham, and, from that investigation and the work done independently at our own station at Greenwich, the Director of Fuel Research expressed himself as satisfied with the hydrogenation process technically. Certain investigations were also made on the financial aspect of the question.
The Government have been assured that considerable advances in technique have been made since then, and they are satisfied that they are justified in giving a measure of assistance which will enable the commercial possibilities of the process to be tried out on a competent scale. As a result of the advances which have been made the company, as the Chairman has announced, is now willing itself to provide all the capital required and to take all the technical and economic risks, provided that it is safeguarded against the uncertainties of the tax position. The Government proposal which, as I have said, will later on be given statutory form, places a limit upon those uncertainties by providing a guaranteed preference of 4d. per gallon on all motor spirit produced from indigenous sources for a period of 10 years from April, 1934, or of nine years from the 1st April, 1835, and I may say that it is the intention of the company to proceed with a scheme for the production of 100,000 tons per annum—that is to say, 30,000,000 gallons—of petrol from British -coal. New capital to the amount of £2,500,000 will be found by the company themselves; they take that risk. It is to be understood that, with the ancillary plant which is now being used at Billingham, and the working
capital, a further £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 will be involved. The orders for new plant which will be placed will give rise to considerable activity in the iron and steel and heavy industries.
What does this mean in development of the coal industry and in cost to the country? It means that for every ton of petrol produced about 3½ tons of coal are required for the process and for ancillary operations, for the production of hydrogen and the generation of power and for other purposes. If 100,000 tons are produced per annum the new plant will require about 350,000 tons of coal a year. That is an entirely new demand; and I may say that the statement about" duff" which was made in two quarters of the House is, I think, the result of a misunderstanding as to how the process is carried out. I do not think I need go into it in detail, except to say that all this coal must naturally be clean coal. That is the answer both to my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and to the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvon (Major Owen).
Since so many authorities have been. quoted to-day, dubious and otherwise, perhaps I might quote the chief chemist of one of the largest oil companies, who, perhaps, in regard to this matter, may not be thought to be a biased observer in favour of the scheme. Dr. Dunstan said only a few days ago:
The announcement of the Prime Minister deserves the most careful consideration. It means that Great Britain is about to enter the world's oil producing countries. It is true that the necessary plant will only produce 3 per cent. of the total petrol consumed, but the experiment is a big one, and the result will be of consummate importance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) talked about extravagant speeches being made by the Government on this matter, but that is not so. I myself in this House have specifically said that Members would be wise not to raise extravagant hopes at the beginning, and the Prime Minister's announcement in the House does not afford any ground for that statement; but he would be a small man with a small mind who would regard this as a small thing. It is in my judgment, and in the judgment of the Government, a small beginning, but a brave beginning, a very fine beginning, for which the company
deserves the thanks, not merely of this House, but of the country. They know that they are incurring risks, but they have counted the risks, and, surely, the attitude to be taken by Members of the House who desire to see this process carried through is to say to them," Good luck and may success follow you."
I will now say a word about the question of cost. In the House yesterday, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury used these words:
It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of any loss of revenue under the proposed guarantee, as this will depend on a number of uncertain factors, including the extent to which home-produced motor spirit displaces imported spirit, the quantity of spirit produced, the amount of preference actually in operation, and the length of the period over which the guarantee extends. As regards cost to the Exchequer, further considerations, such as the relief of the burden of unemployment, have to be taken into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1933; cols. 2233–4, Vol. 280.]
That statement, of course, is drawn in those terms, not because, as Members seem to suggest, the Government have not counted the cost, but because it is impossible for the Government at this moment to give a definite figure which may be quoted as their figure. With regard to the statement that it will cost £500,000 a year or £1,000,000 a year, of course any Member can make that calculation if certain assumptions be granted. For instance, granting that the oil produced is 30,000,000 gallons, and that, after 1935, this all replaces imported oil, and granted that the tax remains at 8d. and there is no excise duty, it is obvious that 4½ years at £1,000,000 would be the figure. It is equally obvious that, if the average of 4d. for nine years be taken, and again assuming that this oil does not take a place in a growing market—and there is a growing market at the present moment—but replaces imported spirit, the calculation may be made on the basis of £500,000 a year being the cost, granting that that is the amount of the preference given in both cases and there is no excise duty. But the Government would be very unwise, in my judgment, not to take other factors into account or to commit themselves to a definite figure.
Let the House consider these other factors. Let me give the following figures. In 1927, the year before the
petrol duty was imposed, the estimated consumption of motor spirit in this country was 688,000,000 gallons. In 1928 it was 813,000,000 gallons; in 1929 it was 849,000,000 gallons; in 1930, 1,038,000,000; in 1931, 998,000,000; in 1932, 1,048,000,000; and in the six months of 1933 so far there has been a rise of 70,000,000 gallons over the first six months of the previous year. These are figures which might be borne in mind by hon. Members who are making their calculations. Some Members talk about it costing £33,000,000 a year, but it is very amusing to find that those Members who say that there is no chance of the thing succeeding' then begin to argue that it will cost £33,000,000. It can only cost any large sum of money on the assumption that the thing succeeds fully, and replaces a large amount of imported motor spirit, and, if that happens we shall not be talking in terms of such figures as I am going to give to the House, but in terms of much larger figures representing miners and other workers employed on many other plants besides the one experimental plant which is now being started.
Moreover, we must not overlook the fact that the process can be used for making heavy oils and experience in this direction when a commercial plant is in operation will be of great value to the country from a defence point of view. Fuel oil produced by this process has been tested by the Admiralty with very promising results. Let me add two other points. At present the production of motor spirit in this country from indigenous materials is about 40,000,000 gallons per annum. Benzol represents 30,000,000 gallons the remainder being produced from shale and by low temperature carbonisation. That is about 4 per cent. of our consumption and there is no duty upon that. If 8d. per gallon were put upon that, it would mean £1,333,000 on the other side.
In answer to questions by my hon. Friends it has been estimated that 12,000 persons will be employed directly and indirectly on the construction of the plant, which will take about 18 months to erect, and this represents a saving on unemployment benefit, according to our calculations, of nearly £1,000,000. When the plant is completed, it is estimated—and I give this estimate to the House after consultation with the industry concerned—that 1,400 miners will be employed in
producing the coal, that 1,280 men will be employed on the plant, and that another 1,280 will be employed in secondary employments, or a total of 3,960.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Is that number of 1,280 men employed based on the expenditure of 2,500,000 in construction?

Mr. BROWN: As regards the plant it is 1,280.

Sir S. CRIPPS: For an expenditure of L2,500,0007

Mr. BROWN: I must not be taken to commit myself to that figure; there may be other points to be taken into consideration. I am giving the exact calculation on the basis on which I was asked about cost. I should like to give the House a good many more facts and figures, but I do not think that the House or the country at the moment are interested in nicely calculated propositions, but are glad that action is to be taken, and I am sure it will be wise for those who really want the experiment to succeed to cease from exercising, as some of them do to-day, the art of political "crab."

Question," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

It being half-past Seven, of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.30 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I wish again to press the Minister on a point that I raised in the Debate last Tuesday in relation to the proposal to impose a charge upon passengers embarking or disembarking at certain piers. I assured
the Parliamentary Secretary last week that these charges were not in existence to-day and they have not been in existence, so far as I can remember, during all the time that I have been travelling from any of these piers. During the week-end I questioned not only people who were in the habit of travelling but officials on various passenger vessels and at the different piers, and they cannot remember any charge being made at some of the piers mentioned in the Schedules, four of which I specified on Tuesday. Objections were invited to items in the Bill and I was informed very definitely that the objections had been met. I was informed that the traders had agreed to the charges. Those who are in the habit of using the piers as passengers were not asked if they had any objections to make and if the traders answered for the travelling public, they did a thing that they had no right to do. The piers at Largs, Wemyss Bay, Gourock and Fairlie are open piers and the railway company are seeking power to impose a maximum charge of 2d. upon any passenger going upon any vessel at any of these piers and 2d. when he alights from the boat on his return home.
I wish to know whether the railway company intend to put this into operation at any time in the very near future. I have been informed that, if they wish to impose these charges, the matter will not come before the House again as we shall already have granted them the power, and all that will be necessary for them will be to get the sanction of the Tribunal. I wish to get an assurance from the Minister that the rights of the travelling public will be safeguarded by him as Minister of Transport, just as the traders rights were protected when they were allowed to appear before the Commissioners who examined the Bill. The traders are organised. They can be represented by counsel and, no doubt, they were represented by the best legal minds that they could engage to state their case when they were alleging objections to the Bill. But the travelling public are not organised. They know nothing of this charge. To many to whom I mentioned it came as a surprise. One or two piermasters to whom I spoke did not realise that this was in the Bill at all. They did not know that such a charge was intended to be made or that
powers were being asked for. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that the scores of thousands o people who travel weekly to the Clydeside resorts will not be mulcted in pier dues and that they will enjoy the same rights and privileges that they have hitherto enjoyed and are enjoying at present.
May I be allowed to remove a misapprehension regarding some figures which I quoted a week ago. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport made the following statement:
I am not quite sure that he did not rather mislead the House—quite unintentionally, I am certain—by comparing the ordinary fares at the present time with the pre-War excursion fares.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1933; col. 1776, Vol. 280.]
The fares that I quoted were not excursion fares but the ordinary fares in existence in pre-War times, and they are borne out by a statement sent me by the Minister himself including a table of pre-War charges as compared with post-War charges. I hope, therefore, the Minister will agree that I was not misleading the House intentionally or unintentionally. Unless we get a satisfactory assurance from the Minister or from someone who has a right to speak on behalf of the company that these charges are not likely to be put into operation, I shall oppose the Third reading.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: My hon. Friend has done a service in raising this point, which is of importance to a great number of people in the west of Scotland and which must have escaped their notice. I do not want to block the Bill. There are some provisions to which we have no objection, but we view with some concern the proposal to impose these pier dues. In certain cases this might be an extreme hardship. Many people now travel daily from Dunoon to Greenock, and in the course of the summer there are many who live in Greenock who work at Dunoon and other coastal resorts. To penalise them to the extent of 4d. per day for pier dues would be totally unfair and unjustifiable. I have not yet heard a real argument why this charge should be made. It may be argued that the piers do not pay, but, if that is the case, the loss should not be made good by levying a charge on the people who have to use them day by day. It is a very keen hardship on trippers, but
I am not so much concerned about them as I am about those who have to travel to earn their livelihood. I trust that the railway company will not force this through the House. It has only got to this stage because the people do not know about it. The company will not get the full 4d. because there is the cost of collection. They will have to erect turnstiles and employ labour to collect the money and at least a fourth of the impost will be swallowed up in working expenses. The railway company is entitled to credit for affording access to certain of the beauty places in Scotland by means of cheap railway fares, but this new power that they seek would be a terrible hardship and, in these days of so-called progress, this is a thoroughly reactionary step and I trust that they will not proceed with it.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to make my protest against this Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland, and also the Minister of Transport, when have been worrying about greater facilities for the Western Isles, have given the reply that they have no power over the ships which sail from the Firth of Clyde to the Outer Hebrides. This is an instance in which we have some influence. As has been pointed out on several occasions here, every other manner of transport all over the mainland has benefited by man's ingenuity, but the Outer Hebrides and those who are dependent upon these ships have not benefited. I do not know what fares the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) quoted, but I can quote fares which existed pre-War in regard to which there can be no denial. I have taken my wife and family down to Rothesay and have returned for 2s.—five of a family. That is impossible now because innumerable restrictions have been put on which did not exist when my family were young. They ran about the boat and escaped being required to pay. That sort of thing was recognised. [HON. MEMBERS:" Laughter!"] Hon. Members may laugh, but if that had not been the case—and this is the serious part about it—children like my own would not have got down the Firth of Clyde. We did not get sufficient money, and there was a laxity then. It was recognised. To-day all that has gone. There has been a tightening up. There is no doubt that the railway
companies, like every other company which owns ships which go round the Western Isles or the Firth of Clyde, are in a favoured position compared with what they were before the War.
I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the fact that the engineers and firemen on those boats are working excessive hours. They are out with the control of our union, otherwise they would not have obtained their jobs. The union have to be lax in order that our men may get jobs on those boats in spite of the long hours which have to be worked and the miserable wages which are paid. All the men on board ship are working under very bad conditions. The Secretary of State should now use his influence with the individuals promoting this Bill. They have no right to keep scooping the pool without giving any concessions. We are giving them a concession here by allowing the Bill to go through. If we were as harsh and as determined about our business as they are about theirs, we should not allow the Bill to go through, but would hold it up. We could systematically organise ourselves as Members of the House to thwart the passage of any Bill which the railway company brought before the House. That is the privilege of a Member of Parliament nowadays. But we have at no time set out in any organised fashion to hold up any work of the railway companies, and on this occasion we are not appealing for our individual selves. We are appealing on behalf of the poor folk, the working classes who are up against it.
I have had many visitors to see me from the West of Scotland, and they have been appalled, not at the poverty in London but at the affluence which they saw in the South of England. They say that the people here in England have no knowledge of the terrible poverty which exists in the West of Scotland. It is because of that poverty problem that we are appealing to the railway companies to put forward a hand to try and help in these difficult times. They should come and go with us, as we try to come and go with them on every occasion. I hope that in making this appeal the Secretary of State for Scotland will not turn a deaf ear and say that he is getting used to us, as if the only way to get any concession is when we hold up the House and have a scene. I hope that it is not going to be said by the Secretary of State for
Scotland that the only way we can get a, concession is when we hold up the business of the House. I hope that it does not come to that, and that we shall be able to obtain concessions when we put forward facts which are irrefutable.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should view the matter from the point of view of the interest of the entire community instead of viewing it from the point of view of the shareholders of the railway companies. He should view it from the point of view of the good of Scotland; of the good of the West of Scotland in abnormal circumstances. I hope that he will say to the company that the Scottish Labour Members threatened to hold up the Bill. It is only the Scottish Labour Members who stand up for the working-class, although hon. Members opposite may say that that is only rubbish and that one would think that there are only a few individuals who represent the working-class. How is it that if we do not raise questions here, no Tories ever raise questions on behalf of the working-class. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will weigh well what he is to say and will not come here with his mind made up before he has heard our point of view; the point of view, not of the shareholders or of the railway company or of the shipping interests. but of the people who are to be affected—the working-class. It is for them that we on these benches speak.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. FIELDEN: Speaking as a director of the railway company, and as it is the Third Reading of the Bill which is now being considered, I ask the House to allow me to explain the real position. I think that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Members who have just addressed the House on this particular question. It is suggested that these are new charges. These piers and quays were constructed years ago by the then railway companies. They were all constructed under Acts of Parliament, which, I believe, in every single case give charging. powers for the use of the piers and quays for the purpose of landing and embarking. The proposal in the Bill is purely and simply to co-ordinate the powers which at present exist. In some cases these powers give the right to charge 3d. for landing and 3d. for embarking, and in other cases ld. As
this Bill was being introduced for other purposes, it was thought that it would also be desirable to simplify and coordinate the charges at the piers and quays.
If the House thought fit to reject the Bill on the question of these charges, it would not alter the charging powers which at present exist, and which, in many cases, are considerably higher than is proposed by the Bill. We have these charging powers now. We have not had to use them. I hope that there is no probability of their being used. In the immediate future, I do not think there is any probability of exercising the powers granted to us under the Bill. In these circumstances, I think that the proposal to co-ordinate the charges which are in operation on the different piers and quays is a desirable one, and one which the House should, agree to pass. If we desired to put into operation the powers which we have at present, or which we shall have under the Bill if it passes, we should have to go to the Railway and Canal Commission to get their approval, and in those circumstances I really think that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) is under a misapprehension in thinking that there will be any damage done to the people in his constituency.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member has stated that these charges are already in existence. Can he inform me why it is that the agents of the railway company cannot evidently find the Statutes which they promised to send me. They have sent me charges for two piers which I did not mention, but not for the four piers about which I was protesting just now. They have not yet sent me the number of the Statute so that I can look the matter up for myself, and substantiate it in this House. I have searched all the afternoon and have not been able to find any Statutes relating to the four piers which I mentioned which give the powers which the hon. Member says are already in existence.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. JAMIESON: As I know something about the locality with which we are dealing here, it is only fair that the House should be informed upon one point, that the charging of dues for the landing and embarking of passengers is no mean thing on the Clyde. No doubt it has not been exercised by the railway
companies on any of the piers which are owned by them although, as the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden) pointed out, they have the power at the present time to make these charges, indeed to make higher charges per passenger than those proposed to be authorised by this Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN: A definite assertion has been made by the hon. Member, and I am certain that he has no desire to mislead the House. If he is so certain that these charges, heavier than the charges proposed in the Bill, are already in existence and that it is within the power of the railway company to enforce them, will he quote the Statutes which gives those powers?

Mr. JAMIESON: If the hon. Member had listened he would have heard that 1 was merely reiterating what has been said by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester, who is a director of the company. He has stated, I have no doubt on authoritative information, that in the case of some piers the present charging powers are in excess of those in the Bill. Be that as it may, the charging of dues for passengers landing and embarking on the Clyde is nothing new. With the exception of the railway piers, I believe that a similar charge is in operation on all the piers on the Clyde. Those piers are either privately owned or are owned by the towns in which they are situated. For the purposes of the upkeep of the pier a charge is made. The railway piers have been constructed by the railway company but up till now the company has not seen fit to make any charge for the use of the piers towards their maintenance. It seems to me only fair that the railway company should have power to make a charge towards the upkeep of the piers, just as much as any town-owned or privately-owned pier at which the railway companies steamers land or embark passengers.
It is in the interests of the travelling public that these piers should be kept in a proper and efficient state of repair. Considering that the railway companies have to meet enormous expenses in the way of wages, etc., it is only fair that they should have the power to make a charge if they think it necessary to do so. There is sufficient safeguard in the
Bill, because the railway company cannot impose these charges until they have the authority of the Railway and Canal Commission. Anybody interested can appear before the Railway and Canal Commission and oppose any application for power to charge dues that the railway company may choose to make. When this question was before us on a previous occasion I raised another point, which I will repeat now, that this Bill had been carefully considered by the Commissioners under the private legislation procedure that we have in Scotland, which is similar to the procedure on a Private Bill in this House relating to England. IF anyone had wished to oppose the. Bill they could have done so. It is idle for the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to say that people cannot oppose. The interests who can oppose are the town councils of the towns concerned, who wish to get people to their towns. They could appear before the Commissioners and oppose the Bill, but they did not do so. The right to charge the dues having been approved by the Commissioners, I think this House should be slow to turn down a Bill that has been so approved.

8.5 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I can well understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and others. I can understand their indignation that any higher charge should be put upon the travelling public. I can especially sympathise with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), although I gathered that his family could no longer avail themselves of the privileges which they appear to have had in the past. I would also observe that o the hon. Member himself managed to get down more cheaply than other people, because even in the cheapest excursion days when the return fare. was 2s. 6c1. he appears to have managed it for 2s. It is natural that his feelings should be outraged by any increase in these charges. I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member for Govan in what I said the other night. I see now that he was dealing with ordinary figures and not the excursion figures.
In regard to the point he has brought up to-night he has been answered by my
hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden) who represents the railway company, and by the last speaker. I do not think the hon. Member need be in the least alarmed as to the situation. The Bill clearly lays down in Clause 4 (2) that:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the section of this Order whereof the marginal note is Maximum rates and charges' the rates dues and charges which the Company may levy at the Company's harbours in Scotland after the date of this Order shall not unless varied in accordance with the provisions of this section exceed the rates dues and charges in operation immediately before the date of this Order …
In. Clause 4 (3) it is provided that
The Commissioners shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any complaint or application that may be brought before them by a competent authority involving the legality of the rates dues and charges or any of them in operation at any time at any of the Company's harbours in Scotland to which they relate and to hear and determine any application by a competent authority made at any time not less than twelve months after the date of this Order for variation of the rates dues and charges or any of them in operation at the date of such application at any of the Company's harbours in Scotland. …
It would appear therefore that the new rate authorised by the Order cannot be put into operation by the company within a period of 12 months from the date of the order, and then only after the consent of the Commissioners has been obtained, which would not be granted without an opportunity having been given to interested parties to be heard on any application. In these circumstances I do not think that there is any serious grievance entailed by the putting into execution of these charges, seeing that the travelling public will have ample opportunity of stating their objections to the proposed charges. I cannot see that the travelling public or anybody else has any real grievance.
The company, as has been stated. already has power to charge rates on certain piers. I am not particularly acquainted with the Clyde, but I see that on Fairlie Pier the company has the right to charge a rate of 3d., on Gourock Pier 1d., and on Wemyss Bay Pier 3d. The object of the Bill is to standardise the charges for all the Company's piers if it should be deemed necessary so to do so by the company. I think therefore that as the travelling public has the power of ob-
jection and as the rates cannot be put into execution except with the sanction of the Commissioners, there is no real objection to the passage of the Bill.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: At the Central Railway Station, Glasgow, there used to be a charge of 3d. to get on to the platform.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The charge is 3d. at Queen Street.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The charge was 3d. at the Central Station until we raised the question here, and it has now been reduced to id. That shows what the railway companies do. They are not a philanthropic institution. If it was not for the power that we have here they would still fleece the poor working class in Glasgow as they did when the poor folk had more money to work for than they have now. Therefore we ask that they should reduce the charges on the piers in keeping with the reduction that they gave to us when the charge for the admission to the platform at the Central Station was reduced from 3d. to ld.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the Minister be good enough to send me the Statutes to which he has referred, giving power to make charges in respect of Fairlie Pier, Gourock Pier and Wemyss Bay Pier? I have been trying to get the Statutes and I was told that I could get them. If I had been assured on this point earlier there need have been no opposition. I am pleased to have the guarantee given to me by the Minister with regard to the 12 months period and the appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission, but in view of the way that the matter has been handled by the railway company's agent I shall divide against the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not know who gave the guarantee to the hon. Member that he would be supplied with the Statutes which give the right to the railway company to charge these dues, but I will endeavour to satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. JAMIESON: Has the hon. Member looked at the Acts set forth in pages 7 and 8 of the Bill?

Question put," That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 34.

Division No.290.
AYES
[8.13. p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pybus, Percy John


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Hales, Harold K.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zeti'nd)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Alien, Lt.-Col J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Asks, Sir Robert William
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Atholl, Duchess of
HellgerS, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramer, John R.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hornby, Frank
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brice, Colonel E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Birchail, Major Sir John Dearman
Hurd, Sir Percy
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Blladell, James
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Boulton, W. W.
Jamieson, Douglas
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Danner, Barnett
Salt, Edward W.


Briant, Frank
Joel, Dudley J. Barnet
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scone, Lord


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Seiley, Harry R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kimball, Lawrence
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Burnett, John George
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Levy, Thomas
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lewis, Oswald
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Liddell, Walter S.
Slater, John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Christie, James Archibald
Mabane, William
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clarke, Frank
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Clarry, Reginald George
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, R. W. (WI-din & Klnc'dine, C.)


Colfox, Major William Philip
McKie, John Hamilton
Smithers, Waldron


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Cooke, Douglas
Magnay, Thomas
Somerville, Annesley A. (wlndeor)


Copeland, Ida
Maitland, Adam
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Marlalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cowan, D. M.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Spens, William Patrick


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stevenson, James


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stewart, J. H. (Fria, E.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Milne, Charles
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Summersby, Charles H.


Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mansell, Rt, Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Denville, Alfred
Morgan, Robert H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dickie, John P.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Doran, Edward
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Morrison, William Shaphard
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewlek (Wallsend)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Nall, Sir Joseph
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
White, Henry Graham


Fleming, Edward Lascelies
North, Edward T.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Nunn, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ford. Sir Patrick J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Withers, Sir John James


Gibson, Charles Granville
Owen, Major Goronwy
Womersley, Walter James


Glossop, C. W. H.
Pearson, William G.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Goff, Sir Park
Penny, Sir George
Wragg, Herbert


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Young, Rt. Hon, Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John



Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Mr. Fielden and Mr. Somerset.


Grigg, Sir Edward
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada





NOES


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
John, William
Moreing, Adrian C.


Buchanan, George.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leckie, J. A.
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dagger, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Inca)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobble, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Kirkwood.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

SUPPLY.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Consideration of Resolutions.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

8.22 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am sure that I express the regret of hon. Members for Scotland that only a short time is available this evening for discussing these Estimates, but at the same time hon. Members have only exercised their rights in raising any subject they desire to raise. No one who is in touch as I am with the needs and difficulties of Scottish farmers, can fail to sympathise deeply with them in their present circumstances. The position of Scottish agriculture to-day is certainly very grave, and prices are still terribly low. As one who was formerly engaged in business I can well imagine the plight of those who are selling their produce to-day below pre-war prices.
I am anxious for a few moments to refer to the main Scottish products. Let me take, first, the question of oats. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that the Minister of Agriculture on llth July stated that the Import Duties Advisory Committee had deferred a decision on the application for an additional duty on foreign oats until they were acquainted with the outcome of the conversations which had been initiated with the Government of Canada on the subject. I may add that day-to-day discussions are proceeding on this matter and that negotiations are being pressed forward with all possible speed. Unfortunately in this, and in other matters, action to improve prices takes time, but the Minister of Agriculture has recently cited to the House the steps which the Government have taken since they came into office to deal with these matters.
Let me remind the House of these steps. Take the case of sheep, which is of vast importance to Scotland. Prices, we are glad to know, have responded and, further, the world price of wool has risen and is still rising. Turning to arable farming, the situation is certainly grave, but definite steps are in progress for improvement. In the case of wheat alone, they are complete and have
resulted in an increased acreage under wheat of upwards of 20,000 acres. Regarding barley, I understand that some of the distillers are reopening and that an increased demand may follow. In the case of the other main arable crop, potatoes, hon. Members will remember that the duty was doubled in May. A marketing scheme is under investigation, and, as the House knows, the quantitative restriction of imports depends upon a marketing scheme. As regards beef, the voluntary restrictions originally arranged last winter have unfortunately not been reflected in a rise of beef prices, as in the case of mutton, but a reorganisation commission for Scottish beef is sitting and will shortly report to the Minister concerned on a scheme for the marketing of beef, which, if adopted, will enable the principle of quantitative restriction to be applied.
I turn now to poultry. The production of eggs in Scotland has increased by some 80 per cent. since 1913; yet there still remains Go per cent. of Scottish consumption supplied from abroad. If home production could meet that demand from 8,000 to]0,000 extra workers would be employed. It is interesting to note that there is great activity in market gardening and glass-house culture. That the measure of protection afforded by the Government from foreign competition has served as a direct stimulus to the home industry is evidenced by the distinct expansion of tomato-growing in Scotland. In the last few years, unfortunately, the purchasing power of Scottish agriculturists, through the fall in prices, has diminished by nearly £10,000,000.
At a time when agriculture is suffering from unprecedented depression in prices, one effect is the withdrawal of labour from the laud, and another, alas, is the reduction of the wages of those left upon the land. It is, therefore, of the first importance that agriculture should be prosperous. In the steps which the Government are taking and have taken they realise that a successful agricultural industry will find quick reflection in the towns of Scotland. It is a truism to say that a bankrupt agriculture cannot pay any kind of wages and that a depressed agriculture seeks relief in wage reductions. Whatever else may be done by the Government to put farming in a more assured position in future, the result must be shared by the workers concerned.
For a few moments let me turn to the various marketing schemes. By way of preface I would say that in the great exporting countries of the world, so far as food is concerned, the marketing of agricultural commodities has been organised on a scale and in a manner hitherto unknown here. The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, and the Act recently passed by this House, have undoubtedly encouraged the erection of structures for marketing. The position of the various schemes framed under that Act at the close of last year was given in the Report of the Department of Agriculture, which I have no doubt is in the hands of hon. Members; but since the Report was issued the first marketing scheme in Scotland, the raspberry marketing scheme, has not received the support of the necessary two-thirds of the registered producers vote The scheme therefore goes no further. The poll of registered producers concerned with the milk marketing scheme, applicable to the greater part of Scotland, takes place on 12th September, and a scheme applicable to the North Eastern counties has been submitted to me for approval. I hope that these schemes, when they come to fruition and are placed before the producers at the poll, will meet with a greater measure of success than the raspberry marketing scheme met with last month.
During the Session which is now drawing to an end I have often been asked by hon. Members as to the position of the Agricultural Credit (Scotland) Act of 1929. The questions have revealed the anxiety of hon. Members on behalf of the Scottish farming industry. I am glad, therefore, to announce that the arrangements for the operation of the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation have now so far advanced that the corporation hope to issue their terms for loans next month, and to commence lending shortly thereafter.
Let me say a few words about research and education. The production of livestock and livestock products is a dominant feature of Scottish agriculture, forming as it does upwards of 80 per cent. of the total output in Scotland. Scotland is specially suitable for livestock and for schemes of assistance and development. The problems are numerous and complex. My advisers inform me, and I am sure correctly, that progress is being made, and that substantial benefits have already
been secured. I would have given one or two instances of the activities of the research institutes in Scotland, but as many hon. Members are anxious to take part in. this Debate I will refrain from doing so. I am anxious to refer to two gratifying features of the work. One is the readiness with which workers from the different institutes and the universities combine to study various problems. In short, they are showing the very best specimens of team work.
Another gratifying feature is that, although in these days of economy every item must be cut to the bone, yet for maintenance expenses the research institutions in Scotland are receiving in our present Estimates £4,000 more than they received last year. In this connection I desire to pay special credit to the governors and staffs of the Scottish agricultural colleges for the efforts they are making to maintain unimpaired the standard of efficiency of those colleges. A remarkable sign of the interest taken by farmers in modern scientific methods came under my observation a few weeks ago. Recently in Aberdeenshire over 600 farmers and others assembled to witness a demonstration of the effects of different methods of wintering cattle. So big was the gathering that loud speakers had to be used. Hon. Members will agree that an assembly of such a size for such a purpose would have been unthinkable a few years ago. I am anxious to secure that all available information is placed readily at the disposal of farmers so that they can make a thorough use of every modern development in connection with these different institutes. I know that the services of many of the teachers and others connected with these colleges are much appreciated by the farming interest and community in Scotland.
Turning to land settlement, I deeply regret that I am unable to announce larger results, but I need not remind the House that during the past year or two considerations of finance have been paramount. In present circumstance's I have deemed it well to concentrate the greatest share of effort on providing holdings suitable for the intensive production of poultry, eggs, etc., in the industrial belt where producers can find a ready market close to their doors. The investigations which I myself made in the homes of these smallholders clearly revealed to me that
the smallholder, in these bad times, has often withstood the depression as well as, if not better than, the large farmer. I should be happy indeed if it were possible to provide holdings for all those who show ability to work them. It would relieve pressure on the towns and on the mines, but I fear that we must cut our coat according to our cloth, and that financial considerations must dominate our policy in this matter.
I must add, however, that although we are concentrating the larger portion of the available sum on the creation of smallholdings in the industrial belt, we are not overlooking the needs of the Highlands and Islands, and land settlement schemes in those districts are proceeding whenever time and circumstance are in favourable conjunction. The spectacle of the effects of long-continued unemployment renders all of us uneasy, and to mitigate these as best one could, I ventured last year as an experiment to start a scheme for making available small plots of land up to one acre in extent for those unemployed men who are living in their homes and who can develop the land in their own neighbourhoods. The rents payable for these plots by the plot holders vary from 6d. to 10d. per week per acre, but no rent is being charged for the first season. The Department provide the necessary plants and seeds and the plot-holders will pay by small weekly instalments, collection being deferred to the second season of occupancy. I wish to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), and other hon. Members, for the assistance they have already granted, and we shall be enabled to go forward, I hope, with greater success in the coming year. We have made available for cultivation some 90 acres in certain counties. I am glad to say that the scheme has been taken up with enthusiasm in certain areas, and we hope for a large extension in the coming year.
I would have liked on this my first opportunity of presenting the Scottish Agricultural Estimates to the House of Commons to have gone at greater length into the various problems which come before the Department but I know how anxious many hon. Members are to voice the wishes of their constituents on the various matters which come before them
in the course of the year. I hope that as times improve, the position shown by our Estimates will improve and above all that the steps taken by His Majesty's Government consistently and determinedly with the one object of raising the wholesale prices of the produce of the land in Scotland may find a response. I hope that as the months go by those steps may lead to increased prices for, as I said at the opening of my remarks the plight of the men on the soil in Scotland—many of them selling their produce at below pre-War prices—calls for every possible consideration and suggestion from the Government and hon. Members. If in the course of this evening's Debate hon. Members submit any proposals which would have the effect of raising those prices without doing undue harm to consumers in Great Britain, I assure them that such proposals will be favourably considered.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I do not propose to follow the Secretary of State in the general survey which he has made of the position. As far as we on this side are concerned, we agree with him in the desire to see the land of Scotland returning better products and better advantages to the men who till it. I am mainly interested in the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It appears to me that the Department of Agriculture in Scotland do not render all the help which they could very well render in the settlement of men on the land. They seem to forget that there are nearly 400,000 unemployed persons in Scotland, a large proportion of whom are well qualified to work on the land. In my own country there were 31,000 fewer men employed in the mining industry in 1932 than in 1924, and anyone who knows anything about the mining population will agree that the bulk of the men in the mines to-day are either men who have themselves come from the land or are the sons of men who have come from the land during the last 30 or 40 years. What is more, a large percentage of them are anxious to get back to the land. I have had any number of communications from and interviews with men in my constituency who are anxious that the Department should do something to provide them with plots or small holdings.
I recognise the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fir Scotland has been placed because of the so-called financial stringency, although I have my doubts about that. You see any amount of money being more or less wastefully spent in the provision. of pleasure and luxury of one kind and another, in this town to go no further, and I do not suppose that things are worse here than in some of the other cities of the Kingdom. I am not very sympathetically inclined to the attitude of mind which finds the financial stringency as an excuse for trying to help men who are fully qualified to do the necessary work, not merely to maintain themselves and those dependent upon them, but to render very useful service to the community as a whole. One part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that I noted was his statement that from 8,000 to 10,000 more men might be employed if the poultry farming side of agriculture were extended.
I have had quite a number of men making application to me as to how they could get support from the Government on this question of poultry farming, and in our county of Lanark the Lanark County Council and the whole of the local authorities in the county have been particularly anxious during the last 12 months that something in the nature of what I am referring to should be done by the Department. It is really work for the nation, not for the local authorities. It is not the business of the county council of Lanark or any of the local authorities in that county to find land and the money for working that land for the unemployed persons in their localities. It is really national work, and it would be of considerable advantage to the nation if these men could be employed along the lines that I am suggesting. The Secretary of State for Scotland recently intimated to me that there had been applications and inquiries for smallholdings in the county of Lanark during the past five years amounting to 682, and that only 31 applications had been accepted. If the Department of Agriculture was rendering real help in this matter and providing land, anything from five to 10 times that number of men could be found to take on this work; and would it not be very much better for these men. to be employed in that work
than drawing unemployment benefit at the Employment Exchange? Talking about the financial stringency, one of the main reasons for it is that the Government are prepared rather to allow men. to go about idle and draw unemployment benefit than to spend money on enabling them to find useful and necessary national work.
On account of the rather short time allotted for this discussion, I promised not to take up much time. We have only about an hour and 10 minutes, and I do not want to stand in the way of other hon. Members, but before sitting down I wish to express the sincere hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Department will really set about the task of endeavouring to find ways and means of meeting the claims of men who themselves feel that they are qualified to do this work, either in poultry farming, in plot holdings, or in small holdings. I can assure my right hon. Friend and his Department that if they do set about this task, they will get the unanimous co-operation of the Members of the Labour party in this House. The one thing above all others that is of vital importance is the finding of ways and means of enabling the men who are unemployed to earn sufficient to maintain themselves and their families.

8.51 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The Secretary of State for Scotland has given ups a survey this evening of Scottish agricultural administration which was a model, as I am sure everybody who heard it feels, of lucidity and compression, but I think our sympathy is due to him for the hard choice which he had to make between giving us the more extensive survey which he would naturally have wished to give us, and in which we all of us, and the farmers of Scotland, would have been so interested, and the generous course which he chose of affording more time to the rest of us to express ourselves this evening. I cannot help protesting against the inadequacy of the time, for which of course my right hon. Friend has no responsibility, devoted to this important subject. We have all of us the deepest preoccupation with the plight of agriculture and the distress of the farmers, farm servants, and smallholders of Scotland, and it is indeed an unhappy circumstance that we are not
able to give a greater amount of time to the discussion of this subject. We hold in our hands, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the report of the Department for the past year, and when we see the variety of subjects with which we have to deal, ranging from the settlement of Scottish families on the land, education and fundamental research into agricultural problems, the vast schemes for the reorganisation of marketing on the one hand and the approval of no fewer than 88 new fancy names for margarine on the other, it is easy to see what a wide field we have to cover in this very short Debate.
But while our minds must be, as I say, mainly preoccupied with these wider problems of agriculture, it is necessary to concentrate to-night, owing to the inadequate time at our disposal, rather upon those administrative details of the Estimates the discussion of which is the primary purpose of these Debates. While last year I felt it my duty in introducing these Estimates to emphasise the appallingly serious conditions which farmers were then facing, the position to-day is even worse. The farmers' resources are more depleted, the farm servants have had to submit to reductions of wages which, though not uniform, have fallen with crushing weight on many households and have filled those who are concerned about their welfare with alarm, while the reductions which landlords are giving in rent, combined with taxation at War-time levels, are inevitably spelling disastrous deterioration in the capital equipment of the industry. The measures of the Government seem to us neither to be conceived widely enough nor to go deep enough to reach near the root of the evils which afflict the industry, but confining myself within the limits which I undertook to observe at the beginning of my speech, I will deal only with those activities of the Government of which we find evidence in this report of the Department and in the Estimates.
I should indeed have liked to follow the Secretary of State for Scotland in the references which he made to such wider issues as the raising of prices. He said he would welcome from any of us—and I should very much have liked to respond to his invitation—any suggestions which we might make for the raising of prices without involving hardship on the con-
sumer. I would only make this comment on what he said, that any effort to raise prices which does involve hardship on the consumers would be fatal to agriculture, because it is only on the prosperity of the consumers and the purchasing power of the consumers of this country, mainly employed as they are in urban industry, that the prosperity of agriculture depends, and to raise prices above the power of this great mass of the population to purchase would only mean the decline and eclipse of the industry of agriculture.
Short of those larger issues of the raising of wholesale price levels, and the reform of the structure of the industry, into which I do not intend to go, there is surely no measure calculated to bring help more quickly to a place where it is more needed in this emergency by the Scottish farmer, than one which would give him the benefit of the lower interest rates which now prevail and which would therefore lighten the burden of his mortgages and secured debts. We therefore welcome the statement that at long last this Agricultural Corporation is going to get to work in Scotland, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that it does in fact get to work. We have had assurances—I have given some myself—many assurances over four years that it is just going to happen. I have given some in the firm belief that it was about to happen. I hope that, if the Secretary of State suffers another disappointment, he will see that action is taken, if not with the co-operation of these banks, then without it, so as to make available to farmers these much needed long-term credits on sufficiently generous terms.
If this is true of farmers large and small, it is equally true of smallholders and of that particular form of agricultural organisation which is known as the sheep stock club. Many of these clubs in which we, as representing the taxpayers, have a great stake at present, are in the very direct straits, and I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House on this subject because it affects many of my own constituents and many other constituencies as well. Let me mention one case in my constituency which is typical. It is the case of Keoldale, which is the nearest place to Cape Wrath in Scotland. These men bought a sheep stock for £26,000. The Board of Agriculture, as it then was, on
the instructions of the Government, told them that this was a national policy. They were not land speculators, and they understood that their willingness to take over this sheep stock was in accordance with the policy of the nation, as indeed it was. They took over this sheep stock at a sum of £26,000. They paid £3,000 down and got a loan from the Treasury for £23,000. They paid their interest whenever it was due up to Martinmas last. They have looked well after their sheep and maintained the reputation of the stock in the markets of Scotland.
Including the first payment which they made of £3,000, and the repayment of capital, they have paid £13,000 for that sheep stock. They have paid more than the stock is worth at present prices, and now they have to start to pay another £13,000 to make up the £26,000 which was the original price. It is not as if they want to get out of a contract into which they have entered. As is clearly shown on page 15 of the report, these sheep stock clubs are meeting their obligations. Out of £120,000 of loans, loans amounting to £14,000 have been repaid in full, while other repayments of capital amount to £57,000. These men are paying up splendidly, but the Secretary of State, who has sympathetically replied to my communications on this subject, must feel that it is not fair that the adjustments in those transactions, which are made necessary by economic forces of unparalleled strength and destructiveness, should be made at the expense only of these crofters. Therefore, it is urgently necessary that the Government should come to some arrangement for dealing with the finance of the sheep stock clubs which has been completely upset by the recent movements of prices.
From the question of sheep stock clubs I pass naturally to the question of land settlement, in regard to which the Secretary of State expressed his sympathy and willingness to make progress when times were more favourable. At a time when the permanent settlement of families on the land could make such a substantial contribution towards the solution of the problem of unemployment, at a time when it could be done as regards certain classes of holdings, as I showed in a speech which was not challenged just before Christmas, without cost to the State, when the success of those already settled
clearly proves that this is one of the true lines of agricultural development in this country, when the increasing number of applicants and the contentment of existing smallholders testifies to the immense social importance of this policy, and when the low rates of interest now prevailing afford a firm financial foundation, I cannot help thinking that it is a tragedy that the process should be increasingly slowed down. It is true that last year, faced with a deficit in the Budget, with the conversion of the War Loan not yet effected, and with the high interest rates then prevailing, I consented to surrender £50,000 of balances in the Agricultural (Scotland) Fund, but I made it plain at the time that I regarded it as a temporary measure, as an emergency contribution to the financial needs of the nation not to be renewed in a normal year; and I added the assurance, which I gave not without authority, that the process of adaptation of these holdings would continue throughout the year. Not only has that undertaking not been observed, not only has the cut of £250,000 been repeated, but it has been increased by 50 per cent, to a total of £75,000.
Now I am not going to assume that the Secretary of State is hostile to land settlement. I know that the Under-Secretary is one of its most fervent advocates. As chief of a Department he has found it necessary to give effect to the general financial policy of the Government, but this policy is one of an importance which transcends every other subject of our Debates on these Estimates. It is a question to which I shall return on a more suitable occasion, and meanwhile I will only remind the Secretary of State that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the House the other night that the prospects for the next Budget were good. Here is a direction in which a bold constructive national effort is possible. It is a policy for which Scottish public opinion will expect a generous provision to be made in the Estimates for next year.
Several other economies which the Secretary of State has had to introduce must be regarded, if as necessities, as most regrettable necessities. I will mention only two. One is the reduction in the drainage grant. That comes at a most unfortunate time, when it can only have the effect of accelerating that deterioration in the capital equipment of the industry to which I referred earlier
in my speech. Even on the basis of a contribution from the State of only one-quarter of the cost of schemes, there were applications for more than the sum of money which was available last year, and this drainage grant has a most exceptionally high employment value. It is calculated officially that for the expenditure of £1,000 out of State or local taxation you can employ as a general rule four men, directly and indirectly. For the expenditure of £1,000 out of State funds on drainage, with the £3,000 which the one who gets such a grant would have to find, you can employ 33 men directly and 11 men indirectly, making 44 in all, 11 times as many as are employed by other schemes. Therefore, it is most unfortunate that this economy should have been made at such a time on A work with such a high employment value.
The other economy to which I wish to refer is the omission to fill the vacancies which have occurred owing to the death or retirement of two highly-placed technical officers of the Department—the senior inspector of agricultural education and the chief technical Adviser to the small holdings branch, a post that I myself left vacant last year. I feel it unnecessary to detain the House by expatiating on the importance of these posts, or the great services rendered to agriculture by their occupants in past years, or upon the inevitable loss of efficiency if they are left vacant very long, but, on the other hand, it would be unfair to criticise the Secretary of State in these times of financial difficulty if he feels it possible to assume the responsibility to this House for not filling these posts at the present time. I hope, however, that he or the Under-Secretary will be able to assure us that these appointments will not be unduly delayed.
There are many other things with which I should like to deal—agricultural research and education, the need and possibilities of expansion in the milk industry, and the need for more research into animal diseases on which only £25,000 is now spent, no more than £5,000 of which goes to dairy cattle. There is, however, one question of great importance to the Highlands on which I feel it is necessary to touch at the present time, and that is the depredations of the deer. Ever since 1921 there have been meetings of representatives of the various
farming organisations and landlords to discuss a policy for dealing with this subject. It is very important that we should know when it will be dealt with. If it is to be by legislation, let the legislation be introduced early. It should be circulated now, before the House rises, or during the Recess, so that we can know what is proposed, because it is in November that it will be necessary to act, and we ought to have the Bill as one of the first Measures to be discussed then; but if legislation is not possible as early as November I would ask the Secretary of State what administrative measures he proposes to deal with this problem.
Let me close with but a brief reference to the vital importance of marketing schemes. As one who has felt bound to criticise them—and must continue to do so when certain of their details and certain of the principles on which they are based come again under discussion—let me say how much I hope that in this time of desperate emergency they will meet with a greater measure of success than it is possible for me to believe they will attain. With all their imperfections they are one of the hopes in this great emergency of the Scottish farmer, and if I, in common with other Members, can in any way contribute to their success, I shall be very glad to do so. I earnestly hope that in connection with the pig, milk, and fat stock marketing schemes the Secretary of State, and those who work with him, the Under-Secretary of State, the officials of his Department, and the Agricultural Organisation Society—all who have worked so devotedly to improve the system of agricultural marketing in Scotland—will not suffer another disappointment like that which they have recently suffered in the rejection of the raspberry scheme, but rather that Scottish farmers will see in these schemes a means of exercising control such as they have never yet enjoyed over the marketing of their produce, and of convincing the public that it can rely upon Scottish farmers to produce a regular supply of graded produce, of standard types, fresher and of higher quality than any other supplies which come upon our markets. Black as is the immediate outlook, I am firmly persuaded that Scottish agriculture will revive, and that in the progress towards that revival schemes for the reorganisation of marketing will mark an important step.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. JAMES STUART: I should like to join in thanking the Secretary of State for the brevity of 'his introduction of this Vote, and at the same time to assure him that in my opinion, at least, he managed in that short time to cover very fully a great deal of ground, for which we are all most grateful. I was glad to note that the Secretary of State realises that the scheme for the restriction of meat imports has not attained success in the matter of beef and beef prices, because I am convinced that some other action on the part of the Government will be necessary, and I hope they will press forward with the negotiations in order to find some satisfactory method of dealing with it. It was argued that the agreements which had been entered into were going to relieve the market of a considerable quantity of beef, but in actual practice the scheme has not worked out as it was intended or as we were led to believe it would.
I do not wish to go into details or quote a lot of figures, because the Secretary of State is well aware of them, but I did see one or two interesting facts stated in the "Scotsman" of 19th July. It was stated that instead of there being a reduction in the imports of frozen beef, as contemplated by the agreements, the quantity imported during the first six months of 1933 was actually 14,829 tons, or 31.3 per cent., more than in the same period of 1932. Taking chilled beef and frozen beef together, the imports in one quarter were about 10,000 tons more than in the corresponding quarter of 1932. Quite clearly the only possible result of this is a fall in the prices of beef. I do not believe that the agreements entered into have been the success which we hoped they would be.
I would like to mention the fact that frozen beef imported during the last six months was in excess of the amount of the agreements, and, in the case of the Dominions, was in excess of expectations by over 15,000 tons. The principal offender is stated to be the Argentine, which sent 7,071 tons more than it ought to have done. Australia and New Zealand together sent some 7,245 tons in excess of what was sent in the first six months of 1932. I will not quote any more figures on this question, with the exception of one to which I wish to draw the attention of the Government. There has been a
very marked increase in the imports of canned meat and off als—6,000 cwts. in the first six months of the year. The percentage increase was 12½. As these canned meats are outside the scheme, they are only subject to a 10 per cent. duty, but owing to the restriction of chilled meat which is in operation, the importers naturally send their canned meat in, in spite of this duty, to help dispose of their surplus.
I have dealt with meat, and now I should like to point out that, under the agreements, it was always intended that the home producer should have the first claim on the home market. In practice, that is clearly not the case. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the question of oats, and I do not want to go further into that, except to assure him that we most earnestly hope that the negotiations with Canada will come to a successful and speedy conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman must be tired of the subject, and he will be as glad as many of us to see some satisfactory solution. As he may be aware, there is very strong feeling among Scottish farmers, and in the Scottish farming community generally, that they are' not getting fair treatment as compared with the treatment of their friends and neighbours in England. One of the chief complaints is in regard to wheat. I admit that more wheat is being grown, but the Scottish farmer has not received much help from the Wheat Quota Act, and he is not getting much help from the beet-sugar subsidy. Payments to carry out these Acts come out of the pockets of the general taxpayer. The Scottish farmer is just as much a member of the general taxpaying community as anyone else, and he does not see why, in these very difficult times, he should be taxed in order to help his neighbour across the Border. The feeling has been expressed recently that what was holding up action on the part of the Government, in connection with foreign imports of oats, was the fact that in England there is strong opposition from those who buy feeding-stuffs, and who want to buy the cheapest foreign oats for this purpose. I would like to impress upon the Government that, in the long run, and looking at the broad picture, it is far more important that we should do everything in our power to maintain a large arable acreage, and thereby assist employment, than that we
should please a few buyers of cheap, imported foodstuffs.
With regard to the general question of our agricultural policy, I become more and more convinced that we must aim at increasing our own production foodstuffs. I know that under recent trade agreements entered into by the Government we have been giving away a certain percentage of our markets in this country in return for markets abroad for certain of our products and manufactured goods. I do not for a moment suggest that it is not of the greatest importance that we should find markets for our products, but I would ask, taking the long view of things, whether that is in the best interests of the country? Foreign nations are becoming more and more industrialised, and as they do so they will require less and less to buy our manufactured goods, and our exports will therefore fall. As long as we maintain our present policy, we have to continue to import enormous quantities of feeding stuffs from abroad. Therefore, when eventually our trade becomes so unbalanced that it will be necessary for us to restrict imports still further, we can do this by increasing our home production of the necessities of life. I sincerely urge the Government to keep this view before them, because the action that I suggest will have to be taken sooner or later, and, in my opinion, the sooner it is taken the better. The Government will receive every possible assistance and encouragement from their supporters on this side of the House in any action that they may take with that object in view.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I hope that I shall not prevent those who come from areas more bucolic than my own from taking part in this Debate. I join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) in protesting against the shortness of time available to discuss this subject. The characteristic thing about the operations of the Scottish Office is the length of time that they take to do everything, and the shortness of time that we get to discuss what they have done. In the few minutes which I propose to occupy, I want to raise with the Secretary of State for Scotland the credit question. He has received congratulations from his predecessor in office upon having brought
the credits almost into being. We cannot say "quite," but he has made a more definite statement of achievement than any of his several predecessors who have had to deal with this matter. He hoped that the farmers of Scotland will have the advantages of credits available to them in a reasonably short period now; I hope that that is so.
I know, and I am sure that other hon. Members know, that there are hard-working farmers in Scotland who have had to go out of business simply because a very limited amount of credit was not available to them on reasonable terms. There is one very hard case which I have particularly in mind, of a hard-working farmer and his wife-, who had started as farm labourers. The man became a farm manager, and finally the couple got into a farm of their own at 50 odd years of age. They struck the very worst period for prices, and after a very brave struggle for two years, during which this man and his wife worked like veritable slaves from before sunrise until after sunset, they had to give up and go away back. All their life savings are gone, and at over 50 years of age they have to start at the bottom of the agricultural ladder. In Scotland, that is a very lowly, penurious and laborious position to be in. I want the right hon. Gentleman to recognise this defect in the Scottish Office. I am not placing it on the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders, because he has been too short a time in office to be blamed for it, but this defect has been characteristic of the Scottish Office ever since I have been in this House. It is the length of time between a decision taken in the House of Commons and the practical operation of that decision.
Let me point to two or three matters which have been outstanding. There is the Auchincruive dairying research, which is now in operation but which has taken about three or four years from the time a beneficent donor presented a handsome sum of money. It took all that time before our fellow-countrymen could get a working scheme upon which they could all agree. There is the same position in one of the other Departments about the school at Ayr. There, again, a beneficent donor placed an educational establishment at the service of the community, and they are 'still "argue-bargueing" about it, and are likely to do so for another two or three years. I know it does not come
under the Agricultural Vote, but it is the same point. Again we have been told to-night that the raspberry scheme, which we passed here with the approval and support of the Secretary of State, has been rejected by the people in whose interests we were asked to pass it. Again there will be a lot of "argue-bargue," and a lot of thrawn devils will gather round the table and argue for years. In modern conditions, with the type of problem to be confronted now in agriculture and in other branches of life, you cannot have years of delay before you set going the things you want done. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, in agriculture particularly, to devote his attention to finding out where is the weak link in Scottish administration that makes it absolutely necessary for long periods to elapse before the things we want done are actually put into operation.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: All Scottish Members to-night must speak with an eye on the clock, and I should like to join in the protest, which I will renew on the Adjournment, against the time allotted to this Debate. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has come slightly under the influence of the atmosphere of the Scottish Office which has been described in such vivid terms by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). In referring to some matters with which he hoped to deal, my right hon. Friend employed the phrase that they would be dealt with when time and circumstances were in favourable conjunction. That possibly is a very necessary condition but, so far as certain departments of the Scottish Office are concerned, I have very largely the same view as the hon. Member for Bridgeton. Although I do not wish to indulge in any recrimination or to bring up to-night any matters of the past, I could give my right hon. Friend very striking examples of the way matters have gone on for several years in the Scottish Office in certain departments. It is time that was stopped. We are all perfectly sick of it, and the country is sick of it. I shall refer to no particular department, but I could give him some startling examples of what I mean.
Let me refer for one moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). He said that in five
years 682 applications had been made for land settlement in his county, and that in five years 31 of those applications had been granted. That case has only to be stated by my hon. Friend to enlist the close attention and sympathy of the Secretary of State for Scotland. If I were in that position, though I never shall be, I should call for all those applications, for all the correspondence which had taken place in connection with them, and I should require a very good explanation why out of 682 applications only 31 had been granted in these days when special consideration for the unemployed is necessary.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The Department of Agriculture is limited under the Land Settlement Act by the money granted by Parliament. That is the explanation.

Mr. WALLACE: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. We have heard the same statement before, and there may possibly be too close an adherence on the part of the Scottish Office to the phrase that they must wait until time and circumstances are in favourable conjunction. It is time the Scottish Office took a firmer line with the Treasury on matters of Scottish interest. The Secretary of State for Scotland called the Scottish Members together some time ago and introduced to them a scheme for dealing with the unemployed by making available for them plots of land varying from a quarter of an acre to one acre. That gesture on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland showed his genuine interest in the unemployed, and was a real contribution to the health and comfort of those people who may take advantage of his offer. So far as my own constituency is concerned, I am glad that already more than 80 men have responded to that offer. I am also glad to add that, during the past two or three weeks, two representatives from the Department of Agriculture have visited my constituency and are doing everything possible to help the centre there, which is doing its best to help the interests of the unemployed in its district. I am very glad that this friendly gesture has been made, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland has explained that the public assistance bodies will take the kindliest possible view of all those who
take up this particular scheme, and that no irritating restrictions regarding relief will come between them and the full enjoyment of those plots.
On the question of the potato marketing scheme in Scotland, I am aware that this matter is sub judice at the present time, and I shall not refer particularly to it except in one connection. I am sincerely doubtful about basing our agricultural schemes or any other Scottish Measures on Bills which have been passed for English purposes. I do not know if the potato marketing scheme comes under that description. It may be quite different, but, from our point of view in Scotland, there is far too much legislation by reference and, if we could avoid that as far as possible, it would free us from a great deal of unnecessary delay and unnecessary litigation. In conclusion, I should like to acknowledge that I thought my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the limited time at his disposal, made an illuminating and constructive speech on the question which we are now considering.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I regret that I have not the time to touch upon one or two aspects of marketing in general, and, therefore, will confine myself to some of the figures which have been placed before us is the Estimates. Naturally, the thoughts that are in the forefront of my mind are those which must be paramount in the representative of an industrial constituency, and a constituency in which unemployment exists in an acute form, and, therefore, I shall do anything that I possibly can to prevent this or any other Government in the future from closing any avenues of employment such as I see in the possibilities presented in these Estimates.
With regard to land settlement, like the previous speaker I appreciate what has already been done with special reference to the mining areas, but I hope that, when these areas are being attended to, we shall not lose sight of the question of the ability of many people in the larger towns to accommodate themselves to the conditions, and I hope that this matter will not be confined to small units of activity, because I think that there are possibilities in larger units if they are presented in the proper form. I notice
in the Estimates an item of £5 for cooperative societies. I regard the application of co-operative ideals in this work as very important, especially when men are being taken to that work who are strange to the people engaged in it, and who may need more attention and more connection with individuals of that type. When they are taken from towns or small communities they are more likely to gain the advantages that can be gained from co-operative work. I cannot go into the details now, but I should like to refer to an article on" Small Holdings round a Central Farm," which appears in the July issue of the Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture. It is written by Lord Phillimore, and he states that the two main difficulties with regard to this question are:
(1) The heavy capitalisation per acre required (except perhaps in the case of statutory holdings when the holder pays a full, fair rent, and not a rent based on the capital cost of the holding);
(2) The marketing of what at the best must be a small output.
He goes on to say that both of these difficulties are met by the Metayer system, to which he specially refers, and that there would be possibilities in a cooperative grouping system round the central farm. He visualises a landlord, but I prefer to visualise one of our own experts as the controlling element at the centre.
The question of land drainage opens up possibilities of employment, not only for agricultural people, but for others as well. I notice that the present Estimates only provide £10,000 for this important work, showing a reduction of £6,450 as compared with last year. According to the Department's own literature, the amount provided last year was £16,450, but there were applications for no less than £17,381. The comparable figures regarding employment are not given, but, going a year further back, I find that 1931-32 gives a splendid illustration of the incidence of this work on employment. I find that in that year no less than £24,011 was paid in grants for that purpose, but that that was sufficient to agitate the people requiring land drainage to such an extent that the total outlay was no less than £73,000, and of that total sum there was expended in wages £52,493. That is an outstanding illustration of the tremendous value of this land drainage work from the point of view of providing
employment. I trust that every endeavour will be made to prevent the powers that be from cribbing the Scottish Department of Agriculture in years to come, in view of the fact that in Scotland there is much land that can be made available, and I trust that this matter will be attended to in a measure which is not at the moment indicated in the Estimates.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: I am sure that hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies have been delighted to hear the expression of deep sympathy which has come from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in regard to the difficulties of the Scottish farmer. It is, perhaps, symptomatic of that new interest which is now being taken, after years of propaganda, by the urban voter in the prosperity of the agricultural industry, and I hope that we may look forward next Session to the pleasure of the hon. Member's company in the Division Lobbies when it becomes necessary to vote for Measures to raise the price of agricultural products and to restrict the flood of foreign imports which is bringing ruin to those British farmers in whom the hon. Member has expressed so much interest. I was also glad to hear the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and others lay so much stress upon the policy of land settlement. I agree with the right hon. Baronet that the most regrettable feature of this Vote, for which, as he himself admitted, he was originally responsible, is the reduction from £125,000 to £100,000 in the amount devoted to smallholdings.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am not responsible for the reduction to £100,000. While I was responsible for the first £50,000, as an emergency contribution to the financial needs of the nation last year, I am not responsible for its being repeated this year, or for the further cut of £25,000.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: I am very grateful for that correction. The right hon. Baronet acquiesced last year in this reduction, which has now been repeated. Although the Secretary of State has been unable to-night to hold out any hope of an extension of this policy, I am encouraged, both by the recent statement of the Lord President of the Council in the country and by the exceedingly favourable circumstances
which now prevail, to believe that the Secretary of State is contemplating a greater expansion of this policy than it was possible for him to indicate to the House to-night. But before that policy can be settled on such a scale as would be desired by the right hon. Baronet and by most of us, three essential preliminary conditions must be fulfilled.
The first is a cheapening of public credit and a lowering of the rate of interest at which money can be borrowed. That condition has already been fulfilled in a large measure, and we may acknowledge that the right hon. Baronet, when he was in office as a Member of the National Government, played his part in enforcing those economies which were necessary to this end. The next condition is that we should assure to the smallholder for his produce, not an exorbitant price, but such a price as will bring him a just and adequate reward for his labour, will protect him against market fluctuations over which he has no control, and will bring him at least the replacement value of his produce. That, however, is precisely what the right hon. Baronet and his party have persistently refused to do. If we are to have a prosperous and contented community of smallholders, we roust transform the agricultural market from a condition of chaos to a condition of order. You cannot do that so long as you allow the unrestricted flow into the country of bacon, eggs, butter and every other kind of agricultural produce. If we are to take seriously the hopes expressed by the right hon. Baronet for the success of the new marketing schemes, perhaps we may hope that he also will reconsider his attitude towards the Agricultural Marketing Bill and will support us next Session when these schemes come to be applied.
The final condition which must be fulfilled is that we shall justify to the Treasury the expenditure for which we ask. We are not asking the Government to reverse the financial policy of 1931 and, if we demand, as we hope we may, more money for small holdings, we must be able to reconcile that demand with those canons of economy which the Government has applied, and which have already produced such admirable results on the credit of the country and, as we believe, on our unemployment figures. The right hon.
Baronet referred to his speech before Christmas in which he told us that we could now settle men on the land at no cost to the Exchequer. In that calculation was he not taking into account the amount that we should have spent on unemployment if we had had these men upon the dole?

Sir A. SINCLAIR indicated assent.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: That is quite a fair calculation. If you put a man on the land, you are making another job available in industry. We may, therefore, say that, if the interest and sinking fund upon the capital expenditure of the State is not greater, by the amount of the dole, than the rent which the State receives, it is worth while to settle men on the land. The right hon. Baronet might easily go further and point out that the country spends a great deal of money upon housing, and anyone who has been at the Scottish Office and has been able to inspect the smallholding housing models there will agree that they are of a most commodious and desirable type. We are spending £12 10s. a year in the slum clearance subsidy on settling a family of five persons in a new house when they have been taken out of a slum.
If it could be shown—I do not say it could—that the cost to the State of settling a man on the land would be no more than the cost of settling a family of five persons from a slum into a new house—if we are justified in spending that sum in the one case for nothing more than providing a family with a new house, are we not ten times more justified in spending this money in order to provide him not only with an excellent house but with permanent employment which will help to redress the balance between urban and rural industry? I believe the possibilities for smallholdings at present are almost unlimited, when we have cheap credit, when land is easily available, and when there are no fewer than 5,000 unsatisfied applications for smallholdings, although we are only able at present to settle a hundred men a year. I purposely refrain from giving any figures, not because I believe they are unimportant but because the latest available figures are those of a year ago, and we may have reason to hope that the reduction in costs that may be effected may be so
great that even the figures of a year ago would be of little value for any future calculations that we may have to make. If the Secretary of State, who can bring to bear upon this problem the weight of his great business experience, and the Under-Secretary, who has identified himself very closely for the whole of his political life with the policy of land settlement, can succeed in producing Estimates which will justify expenditure upon a far greater scale than is provided for in this Estimate, they will earn the gratitude both of their colleagues in the House, and of their countrymen in Scotland.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: The Government position, as I understand it, is that the industry of agriculture should be made to thrive. I very much regret that we cannot say that Scottish agriculture thrives. The Secretary of State has admitted that its position is very serious. I do not want him to consider that I am criticising him personally. What I am criticising is the policy of the Government. I do not think we have had a fair deal. May I quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th February, 1932?
Agriculture has been so long depressed, it has suffered so many disappointments in the past, that I do not think anybody can be surprised if it is still anxious and if it is even a little suspicious about any new proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1602, Vol. 261.]
If those words were true in 1932 they are true to-day, and I certainly think something must be done soon. I want to press very strongly on the Minister two points that were raised by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. James Stuart) with regard to the imports of oats and frozen mutton. Oats is the main cereal crop of the Scottish farmer, the one that makes farming pay and keeps the farm labourer in employment. If oats are going to go out of cultivation entirely, there is no hope for ordinary arable farming. An application was made by the Scottish Farmers' Union to the Advisory Committee, and a second application was made in March, which was hung up until the other day. The English Farmers' Union joined in the application, so that they think something ought to be done for Scottish cereal growers. The Minister tells us now that nothing can be done and that we can have no report because
negotiations have been entered into with regard to the import of oats, and the Advisory Committee will not report until some decision has been come to. I press on him to let us have some decision. The question of oat products is also of vital importance. It is no good having oats dealt with if we do not deal with oat products as well. With regard to frozen meat, if the Minister looks at the trade and navigation returns he will find that the imports for the first and second quarters of frozen mutton and lamb show a certain reduction, but, putting the two together, the reduction is nothing like 10 per cent. It is more like 5 per cent. at the very most, and it does not seem that we are carrying out the undertaking given to the Dominions at Ottawa, and we are doing something greatly to the detriment of our farmers.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: If the Scottish Office has shown any dilatoriness, there can be no dilatoriness in my reply, for in respect of this Vote I have five minutes in which to do it. The question has been so clearly stated that I hope I shall not fail to answer the questions raised. First of all, and most important, is the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) and others, Is the Government policy letting Scotland down in particular? "Have we done all we can for oats? Are we doing all we can for beef? With regard to the question of oats, as hon. Members well know, until you get a reduction of the main overseas import, which is the Canadian import now, no increase of duty by itself will be sufficiently operative, but negotiations are going on with Canada at this moment. So much for oats.

Mr. R. W. SMITH rose—

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid that I cannot give way. Now with regard to the imports of beef. The House, and Scottish Members in particular, must recollect that we are only in the era of voluntary agreements made in an emergency by the Minister of Agriculture and the Government. You cannot hope to get a proper control until you have the contemplated regulations in force under the new Marketing Act. That in its turn demands the existence of a
marketing scheme. Those who are anxious to see a proper regulation of the imports of beef must rest for its approval when it comes before them upon the Scottish farmers of the beef marketing scheme. Upon that basis quantitative restriction rests under the Act which the House has passed this Session. Let there be no mistake about that. If you are in the era of voluntary agreements, no doubt the machinery for getting those agreements completely carried out is much more difficult. There will not be a satisfactory situation except you have the situation figured by the Marketing Act of marketing schemes and restriction orders on foreign imports.
The other main question has been that of land settlement, and the feature of the Debate has been the universal feeling on all sides of the House as to the importance of that subject. I am glad to see general agreement in the wisdom of our experiment of trying plots of half an acre or so for unemployed miners and others. Let me recall to the House that that is experimental, but I think that we have reason to be satisfied that the results will be successful. We have gone into it during the first year on a small scale, as I am sure it would not be wise to try to induce large numbers of men to go in for the thing until we have seen how it works.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Why do you not do for the West of Scotlancl what you do for the East

Mr. SKELTON: As far as I can judge from the reports, the efforts will be a success, and before the autumn I hope to have visited every plot, so that we may have personal knowledge as to the success of the experimental scheme. On the subject of land settlement, there is no doubt general agreement as to the particular need of Scotland and the strong feeling expressed as to its expansion. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) referred to various cases of delay and procrastination, some dealing with agricultural topics and some with other topics, but all I can say is that I shall be delighted to deal with each of these with him in correspondence or by discussion. I speak for my right hon. Friend and myself when I say that we shall take every means in our power to expedite the work. I do not think that we have failed in that, and if we have failed we
are most anxious to be criticised. If our work needs to be expedited, we shall lose no time in trying to expedite it. I will give an undertaking on the part of my right hon. Friend and myself that no efforts on our part in the various activities under our control will be left undone to expedite the work.

Question "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

It being Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to IX of the Civil Estimates, and of the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, and the Revenue Departments Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933.

CLASS I.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS III.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS V.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates.

The House divided: Ayes, 323; Noes, 46.

Division No. 291.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burnett, John George
Dalkeith, Earl of


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davies, Ma). Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Aibery, Irving James
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Male, John P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Donner, P. W.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Carver, Major William H.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cassels, James Dale
Duckworth, George A. V.


Applin, Lieut.-Col Reginald V. K.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Asks, Sir Robert William
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Astbury, Lleut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Elmley, Viscount


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Atholl, Duchess of
Christie, James Archibald
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Clarke, Frank
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clarry, Reginald George
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Colfox, Major William Philip
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Conant, R. J. E.
Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolin


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cook, Thomas A.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Blindell, James
Cooke, Douglas
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Copeland, Ida
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cowan, D. M.
Gibson, Charles Granville


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Brass, Captain Sir William
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Briant, Frank
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Glossop, C. W. H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Gluckstein, Louis Haile


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goff, Sir Park


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Cross, R. H.
Goldie, Noel B.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crossley, A. C.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Browns, Captain A. C.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Gower, Sir Robert


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Curry, A. C.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Salt, Edward W.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Maitland, Adam
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Magney Thomas
Savory, Samuel Servington


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro',W.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Scone, Lord


Grigg, Sir Edward
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Salley, Harry R.


Grimeton, R. V.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hales, Harold K.
Martin, Thomas B.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Slater, John


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hanbury, Cecil
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, Charles
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Harbord, Arthur
Mitchell, Harold P.(Brtf'd & Chlsw'k)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Harris, Sir Percy
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smithers, Waldron


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morgan, Robert H.
Somerset, Thomas


Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer
Munro, Patrick
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


HoreoBelisha. Leslie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hornby, Frank
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
North, Edward T.
Spans, William Patrick


Horsbrug h, Florence
Nunn, William
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Connor, Terence James
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stevenson, James


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Painter, Francis Noel
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Peaks, Captain Osbert
Stones, James


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pearson, William G.
Storey, Samuel


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Penny, Sir George
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Jamieson, Douglas
Petherick, M.
Sugden, Sir WHIM Hart


Janner, Barnett
Pickering, Ernest H.
Summersby, Charles H.


Joel, Dudley Barnato
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sutcliffe, Harold


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pybus, Percy John
Thompson, Luke


Ker, J. Campbell
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rankin, Robert
Wallace, John (Dunferrnlina)


Leckie, J. A.
Ray, Sir William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lees-Jones, John
Rea, Walter Russell
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Leighton. Major B. E. P.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Levy, Thomas
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lewis, Oswald
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Liddell, Walter S.
Remer, John R.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Weymouth, Viscount


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (W d. G'n)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
White, Henry Graham


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Robinson, John Roland
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Coder, Captain J. de Vero
Ropner, Colonel L.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon. S.,


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ross, Ronald D.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mebane, William
Rothschild, James A. de
Wise, Alfred R.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Womersley, Walter James


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wragg, Herbert


McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'oaks)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)



Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord


McKie, John Hamilton
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Erskine.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Banfield, John William
Dobble, William
Hicks, Ernest George


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, Charles
Hirst, George Henry


Brown, C. W. E, (Notts., Mansfield)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jenkins, Sir William


Buchanan, George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anghisea)
John, William


Cape, Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kirkwood, David


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Dagger, George
Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Leonard, William
Milner, Major James
Tinker, John Joseph


Logan, David Gilbert
Owen, Major Goronwy
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lunn, William
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


McEntee, Valentine L.
Price, Gabriel
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Mainwaring, William Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)



Maxton, James
Thorne, William James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

CLASS VI.

Question put,
That this House doth agree Ns ith the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions

reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates."

The House divided: Ayes, 336; Noes, 46.

Division No. 292.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel
Cranborne, Viscount
Harris, Sir Percy


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hasiam, Henry (Horncastle)


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cross, R. H.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crossley, A. C.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Analln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Apsley, Lord
Curry, A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Asks, Sir Robert William
Daikeith, Earl of
Hare-Belisha, Leslie


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hornby, Frank


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dickie, John P.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Donner, P. W.
Holdsbrugh, Florence


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Edge, Sir William
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bragg)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hurd, Sir Percy


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Eimley, Viscount
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Belt, Sir Allred L.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Jamieson, Douglas


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Janner, Barnett


Blinds James
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Boulton, W. W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Feila, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
Ker, J. Campbell


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Briant, Frank
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Kimball, Lawrence


Broadbent, Colonel John
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Forestier-Waiker, Sir Leolin
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Law, Sir Alfred


 Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leckie, J. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lees-Jones, John


Burnett, John George
Gibson, Charles Granville
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Levy, Thomas


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lewis, Oswald


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Liddall. Walter S.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goff, Sir Park
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Carver, Major William H.
Goldie, Noel B.
Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)


Cassels, James Dale
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gower, Sir Robert
Loder, Captain J. de vere


Ceyzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Greene, William P. C.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mebane, William


Christie, James Archibald
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Clarke, Frank
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middleshro',W.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Clarry, Reginald George
Grigg, Sir Edward
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Grimston, R. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hales, Harold K.
McKie, John Hamilton


Conant, R. J. E.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Magnay, Thomas


Cooke, Douglas
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Maitland, Adam


Copeland, Ida
Hanbury, Cecil
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Cowan, D. M.
Harbord, Arthur
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ray, Sir William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Martin, Thomas B.
Rea, Walter Russell
Spens, William Patrick


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westmorland)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stevenson, James


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Milne, Charles
Remer, John R.
Stones, James


Mitchell, Harold P.(Betf'd & Chisw'k)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Storey, Samuel


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Robinson, John Roland
Strauss, Edward A.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ropner, Colonel L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ross, Ronald D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Moreing, Adrian C.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sumtnersby, Charles H.


Morgan, Robert H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Tate, Mavis Constance


Morrison-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Thompson, Luke


Morrison, William Shepherd
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Moss, Captain H. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Munro, Patrick
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-en-T.)


Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Salt, Edward W.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


North, Edward T.
Savory, Samuel Servington
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Nunn, William
Scone, Lord
Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


O'Connor, Terence James
Selley, Harry R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Palmer, Francis Noel
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Peaks, Captain Osbert
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Pearson, William G.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Weymouth, Viscount


Penny, Sir George
Skelton, Archibald Noel
White, Henry Graham


Perkins, Waiter R. D.
Slater, John
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Petherick, M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Pickering, Ernest H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Pickford, Hon. Mary Adam
Smith, Slr J. Walker(Barrow-in-F.)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Powell. Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Wise, Alfred R.


Pybus, Percy John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Womersley, Waiter James


Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Somerset, Thomas
Wragg, Herbert


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)



Ramsbotham, Herwald
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
TELLERS. FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Captain Austin Hudson and Major George Davies.


Rankin, Robert
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.



NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, Williams James


Dagger, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Wailhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dabble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

CLASS VII.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution
reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.

put, and agreed to.

Class IX.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1933.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1933.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1933.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution

reported in respect of the Army Estimates (including Ordnance Factories Estimates),"

put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1933.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates.

The House divided: Ayes, 346; Noes, 46.

Division No. 293.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cowan, D. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Albery, Irving James
Cranborne, Viscount
Hales, Harold K.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Apolin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainshb'ro)
Harbord, Arthur


Apsley, Lord
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Harris, Sir Percy


Asks, Sir Robert William
Cross, R. H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenn'gt'n)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Atholl, Duchess of
Curry, A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Dalkefth, Earl of
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Baline, Sir Adrian W. M.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Teovil)
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Balniel, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Dickie, John P.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Balniel, Lord
Donner, P. W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hornby, F rank


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Eden, Robert Anthony
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Edge, Sir William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elmiey, Viscount
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Blindell, James
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Bossom, A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Boulton, W. W
Entwistle, Cyril Fuiilrd
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jamieson, Douglas


Brass, Captain Sir William
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Janner, Barnett


Briant, Frank
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'i'd., Hexham)
Froot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Ker, J. Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Food, Sir Patrick J.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leoiln
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Kimball, Lawrence


Burnett, John George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Law, Sir Alfred


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswerll (Brmly)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Campbell-Johnston, malcolm
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Angiesea).
Leckie, J. A


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gibson, Charles Granville
Lees-Jones, John


Carver, Major William H.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cassels, James Dale
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Glossop, C. W. H.
Levy, Thomas


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gluckstein, Louis Haile
Lewis, Oswald


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Liddell, Walter S.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Goff, Sir Park
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Christie, James Archibald
Goldle, Noel B.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Clarke, Frank
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Clarry, Reginald George
Gower, Sir Robert
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Greene, William P. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Colfox, Major William Philip
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Gratton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Colman, N. C. D.
Griffth, F. Kingsley (Milddilesbro', W.)
Mebane, William


Conant, R. J. E.
Grigg, Sir Edward
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(PartIck)


Cook, Thomas A.
Grimston, R. V.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Cooke, Douglas
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Copeland, Ida
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McCorquodale, M. S.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassettaw)
Pybus, Percy John
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Magnay, Thomas
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Specs, William Patrick


Maitland, Adam
Rankin, Robert
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ray, Sir William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Malialleu, Edward Lancelot
Rea, Walter Russell
Stevenson, James


Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Manningharn-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Stones, James


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Storey, Samuel


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Strauss, Edward A.


Martin, Thomas B.
Remer, John R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Renwick. Major Gustav A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Robinson, John Roland
Summersby, Charles H.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Milne, Charles
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mitchell, Harold P.(Brtf'd & Chlsw'k)
Ross, Ronald D.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Moison. A. Itugh Elsdale
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thompson, Luke


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Rothschild, James A. de
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Morgan, Robert H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morrison, William Shepherd
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend


Moss, Captain H. J.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
 Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Munro, Patrick
Salt, Edward W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wayland, Sir William A.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Savery, Samuel Servingion
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Scone, Lord
Wells, Sydney Richard


North, Edward T.
Selley, Harry R.
Weymouth, Viscount


Nunn, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
White, Henry Graham


O'Connor, Terence James
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Whiteside, Boras Noel H.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Owen, Major Goronwy
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peaks, Captain Osbert
Slater, John
Wise, Alfred R.


Pearson, William G.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Womersley, Walter James


Penny, Sir George
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)
Wrag g, Herbert


Petherick. M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Young, Rt. Hun. Sir Hilton (S'y'noaks)


Pete, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'prn,Bliston)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Pickering, Ernest H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Plckford, Hon. Mary Ada
Smithers, Waldron
Lord Erskine and Captain Sir George Bowyer.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Somerset, Thomas



Procter, Major Henry Adam
Somervell, Donald Bradley



NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dag gar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Weethoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Debbie, William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


Question put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1933.

Question,
That this 'House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [24TH JULY].

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, the sum of £314,911,994 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Hore-Belisha.

CONSOLIDA MD FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the urban district of Dorking, which was presented on the 17th day of July, 1933, be approved."—[Mr. Douglas Hacking.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. C. Hall.]

SUPERANNUATION (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

10.42 p.m.

Mr. J. WALLACE: I do not wish to detain the House more than two or three minutes, but I want to enter a protest against the inadequate time which has
been allotted to Scottish business in this House this week. I understand that originally two days were set aside for the discussion of Scottish business only, but owing to the action of the Opposition this time was cut down until we have had only something like two hours in which to discuss a very important Scottish Estimate. I do not blame the Government for this curtailment of time. We discuss in Supply the subjects which are selected by the Opposition, but I suggest that the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition has not consulted the best interests of the House or of Scotland in using his influence to curtail discussion on the Scottish Estimates. When the Agricultural Marketing Bill was before the House last week the Chairman was not inclined to call on Scottish Members and inform them that they would have a full day this week for the discussion of agriculture in Scotland. That promise has failed to take effect on account of the action of the right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he has been badly advised. He has not a sufficient number of Scottish Members in his party, and those who advise him apparently do not understand Scottish affairs. For example, one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), in an impassioned speech tonight, said that the only Scottish Members who took the slightest interest in the working men of Scotland and who spoke in their interests in this House were the Labour Members.
There are a good many of us here tonight who wished to take up matters of vital importance to the working men of Scotland, but through the action of the right hon. Gentleman we have been debarred from doing so. I am very glad to see that one Scottish Member of the Labour party has arrived at this important juncture, even though he is a little late. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman and his party have butchered Scottish interests to make a Socialist holiday. What is the idea at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind in persuading the Government that he wished to have only an hour or two for Scottish affairs because he wished to discuss the question of oil? We are all aware of the enormous importance of the distillation of oil from coal to this country; that is common ground, but it is no excuse.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the only questions which may be raised on the Adjournment are those for which some Minister is responsible.

Mr. WALLACE: I follow your Ruling, Sir, but I have the idea that what I am complaining about is a joint responsibility. His Majesty's Government have not taken a sufficiently strong line with the right hon. Gentleman. I apologise if I seemed to have transgressed, but I do not wish to place the whole of the responsibility upon the shoulders of the Leader of the Opposition. I think the Minister is also responsible, because the Leader of the Opposition and his friends persuaded the Government that it would be much better to have what will prove to be a futile and inconclusive discussion upon the World Economic Conference, which will take place on the Appropriation Bill, at a time when the discussion of oil might well have taken place. In a word, I wish to protest very strongly against this neglect of Scottish interests which, I assure the House, is very much resented by the Scottish people.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: These are the middle of the dog days, and it would ill become me to keep my colleagues more than a minute or two longer. I join in this discussion, not because I am responsible for anything—[Laughter]—well, remember that I am one of a party of 50 out of 615 Members, and how one can be responsible in those circumstances Lord only knows. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace), and those who feel so indignant would take the trouble to understand the Rules of the House, they would know that they have 50 minutes from now till half-past eleven, which might be devoted to these important Scottish matters, and which the hon. Member would have been able to discuss. On the Adjournment Motion, hon. Members may raise questions with Ministers, and the hon. Gentleman, when he has been here a little longer—

Mr. J. WALLACE: I have been here longer than you Have.

Mr. LANSBURY: —will understand how to get his points home. This is a wonderful place when you know your way round. The hon. Gentleman has
just exhibited his complete ignorance of how to use the opportunities that this House affords to hon. Members who have been as indignant as he has been about the neglect of Scotland. Here is the champion of Scotland, who has 50 minutes in which to ventilate his grievance.

Mr. WALLACE: I have done it.

Mr. LANSBURY: No, what the hon. Member has done is to ventilate a grievance against an inoffensive person who has no responsibility. I am very sorry for him, and I hope that he will be better educated next Session.

10.49 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: We cannot let the right hon. Gentleman off quite so easily. I associate myself with the protest on behalf of Scotland that has been made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace). The right hon. Gentleman is not quite so irresponsible as he sometimes conveys to this House. In 'this matter, at any rate, it is clear that he has a certain responsibility for advising the Leader of the House, who is finally responsible, as to the business taken. Nobody can dispute that. That is his responsibility as the Leader of the Opposition. It is not treating Scotland fairly, and the Scottish people will not consider that the right hon. Gentleman is treating them fairly, when. he suggests that the Scottish Estimates could properly be discussed in 50 minutes.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that we cannot pursue this attack on the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am not suggesting the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the choice of business. That responsibility lies with the 'Leader of the House, but the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the words he has just uttered and it is those words to which I am replying. He says that at 10 minutes to 11, after the Estimates have been divided upon, is a suitable time to discuss Scottish Estimates. The Scottish people do not think Scottish Estimates should be taken in that hole in a corner way. They think that Scottish agriculture should be given as long as English agriculture, and that a full day should be devoted to it. It is because the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself blind to
these interests that I join the protest of the hon. Member for Dunfermline.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has shown great indignation, but, if he had approached the Whips of the Government which he supports, he would have understood that this particular complaint cuts no ice with the Opposition.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It will with the people of Scotland.

Mr. MACLEAN: It will not with the people of Scotland either when they know what the arrangements were. The Members of the Government and the Scottish Whips know perfectly well that the second allotted day for Scotland should have been taken a fortnight ago but we were approached by the Government representative who informed us that they were not ready and suggested it should be taken later. We fixed a day and took it on the day which seemed most convenient to the Government. Therefore, the responsibility rests not with my right hon. Friend but with the Government which the right hon. Gentleman supports and for which he has voted in all the Divisions to-night. May I also point out to him something that took place when he was Secretary of State for Scotland when, for the first time in the history of Parliament, the Opposition was sufficiently courteous to all the Scottish Members in this House to decline to exercise their prerogative and to fix the business to be discussed. Instead, they approached the Whips of all the parties and asked them what business they desired to discuss.
Only last year on the Scottish Estimates Members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party and of the Scottish Tories congratulated the Leader of the Opposition on giving to the Scottish Members, irrespective of party, the right to raise the particular matters of Scottish administration on which they had a grievance.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Did you do it this year?

Mr. MACLEAN: Certainly; this is another instance of a certain class of person rushing in where angels fear to tread. The hon. Member ought to be cautious and make sufficient inquiries before he brings up a matter of this kind.

Mr. WALLACE: I stand by everything I said.

Mr. MACLEAN: And no one would support you more than I if you had a just case. If the hon. Member has a just cause, the justice of the cause lies against the leaders of his own party in fixing the Scottish date to suit themselves or to suit the particular occasion when they thought they were ready to have a Debate on these Scottish matters. The Opposition are free from blame. The blame rests either with the hon. Member himself and his colleague behind him, or with the Government. He can fix the responsibility where he thinks fit, but at any rate he cannot put the cap on our heads.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.